CEV PDQ

On Tue, 17 May 2005 21:21:24 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Scott
Hedrick" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

So we "unreasonable" folk are increasingly frustrated at your inability
to
let go of the "EVA is hard, and expensive, and rare, and undesirable

Because currently it is just that.

But not because of any laws of physics--it's because of flawed
decisions made in the past.

And *not one person* has ever said otherwise.

No, they only implied it.

Another handwave on your part.

??

If you're going to use hackneyed phrases, you might at least use
applicable ones.

What you apparently want Herb to do is speculate on the future.

No, what we want Herb to do is to recognize that there were not just
technological and physical forces driving that decision, but political
ones,

*None* of which changes the *fact* that no money is being spent on improve
EVA capabilities, so *Herb is right* when he says it's poor design to design
something that requires an EVA capability that *will not exist* because no
effort is being spent on developing it.

But since money could be spent on developing it, the point remains
pointless. The entire architecture is under planning and development,
and part of that architecture could be improved EVA equipment.

rest of idiotically condescending nonsense snipped

No doubt you'll wave your hands again, instead of providing any real
research.

"Research"? What does "research" have to do with it? What is it I'm
supposed to be "researching"?

What strange non sequiturs you come up with.

"Michael P. Walsh" wrote in message
...

"Pete Lynn" wrote in message
...

It would not surprise me if their lack of high purity
hydrogen peroxide, (regulatory reasons?), cost
them a year. Switching to LOX earlier might
have been another way around this.

Buying in engines would have been quicker, but
excepting the unforseen delays, not cheaper, I
expect it would have also constrained them
designwise. They can make and develop the less
sophisticated type of engines they need much
cheaper and faster than anyone else, including
XCor.

Cheaper quite possibly. Cheaper and faster than
anyone else, including XCOR?

In theory yes.

Not proven by their progress so far. I believe that
Armadillo is finding engine development to be a lot
harder than they believed it would be when they
started.

Indeed, their development path has been somewhat circuitous, though they
are quick learners in new field, fast becoming experts.

I also note that if you are trying to win a time
constrained prize then you need to avoid getting into
long lead time R&D programs and that is typical of
engine development.

True, but as you know the X-Prize was never their prime objective, more
a self imposed deadline, theirs is a long term low cost sustainable and
measured development path.

Personally I think they are doing it exactly right.
This is the type of integrated incremental design and
build typical of serious low cost development in
other fields. The one off design mentality more
typical in this industry has very high costs and
achieves very low levels of refinement, though it is
very appropriate within the fixed contract, waste
everything but time context.

Doing it right for what? In the context of winning a
time limited program it is not the way to go and I
believe Armadillo's experience shows that.

Doing it right not in the context of winning the prize, but in that they
a systematically exploring all variations along their development path,
continually doing their homework and optimising their design instead of
just choosing one flawed approach and trying to make it work. This
approach would have worked well for the X-Prize had they been willing to
sink more resources into it and speed up their prototyping cycle, but
the cost benefit was not there - this is volunteer work and they are
taking a more measured approach.

Scaled Composites took the high end. They (with the
help of Paul Allen's money) competed a new hybrid
engine development from two separate contractors.
Throwing more resources into the program reduces
the risk of not making a fixed deadline in time,
although buying an already available LO2-kerosene
engine might have provided an even lower time risk,
assuming a suitable engine was available on the
market.

Indeed, while impressive, SS1 did cost what, $20-25 million? In some
ways this was not a CATS success story. I still ask myself the
question, could the X-Prize have been won for under $10 million? If so
how? I suspect that the Armadillo type approach is potentially capable
of this, they are truly a CATS operation. Theirs is an ongoing
sustainable development path, and I think it is only a matter of time
before they eventually start meeting with major success.

Armadillo seemingly reached a dead end on the
monopropellant H2O2 engine and has moved on to
LO2-kerosene. I suspect they have a long program
of engine development ahead of them. This is due
quite a bit to their limited resources and available
expertise.

Indeed, though I am sure they will make steady progress.

I assume John Carmack is too intelligent to risk his
financial health on some kind of attempt to provide a
low cost propulsion system or manned operating
space vehicle.

I think this actually is his intent, though I am sure that he will not
risk life or limb on anything that is unsafe or unviable.

If it happens, I am sure he will post the results on his
website.

The openness and honesty of their development has greatly impressed me,
it speaks volumes.


Pete.

On Wed, 18 May 2005 16:18:58 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Scott
Hedrick" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
.. .
The point remains that not all
people think that EVA is something for the distant, unthinkable
future.

But the *funding* appears to be.

Because NASA is as blinkered as you, apparently (other than the
possible exception of the Millennial Prize). They could provide
funding for it anytime they choose to do so, just as they are for
systems that don't require it.

You're still welcome to provide some
verifiable examples of *current* funding.

A pointless request, in the context of the discussion. But what's
new?

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Tue, 17 May 2005 21:21:24 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Scott
: Hedrick" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
: such a way as to indicate that:

: So we "unreasonable" folk are increasingly frustrated at your inability
: to
: let go of the "EVA is hard, and expensive, and rare, and undesirable
:
: Because currently it is just that.
:
: But not because of any laws of physics--it's because of flawed
: decisions made in the past.
:
: And *not one person* has ever said otherwise.

: No, they only implied it.

: Another handwave on your part.

: ??

: If you're going to use hackneyed phrases, you might at least use
: applicable ones.

: What you apparently want Herb to do is speculate on the future.
:
: No, what we want Herb to do is to recognize that there were not just
: technological and physical forces driving that decision, but political
: ones,
:
: *None* of which changes the *fact* that no money is being spent on improve
: EVA capabilities, so *Herb is right* when he says it's poor design to design
: something that requires an EVA capability that *will not exist* because no
: effort is being spent on developing it.

: But since money could be spent on developing it, the point remains
: pointless. The entire architecture is under planning and development,
: and part of that architecture could be improved EVA equipment.

: rest of idiotically condescending nonsense snipped

: No doubt you'll wave your hands again, instead of providing any real
: research.

: "Research"? What does "research" have to do with it? What is it I'm
: supposed to be "researching"?

I think Scott means that he's unwilling to take your opinion as fact any
longer and you'll have to back up what you say with references by doing
actual research.

: What strange non sequiturs you come up with.

I'm sure it appears that way to you.

Eric

Scott Hedrick wrote:
[...
*None* of which changes the *fact* that no money is being spent on improve
EVA capabilities, [....]

That statement is factually false, Scott. Money is being spent,
at low levels, both by NASA and at contractors and at various
academic institutions working on various improvements on EVA systems.

It is fair and accurate to say "not enough to make reasonable progress",
but "no" is grossly inaccurate.


-george william herbert
/

Herb Schaltegger wrote:
On Wed, 18 May 2005 14:04:03 -0500, George William Herbert:
[...]
Unless the estimated cost to develop and prove it is less
than the cost of developing heavy lift alternatives.

Only if you presume the requirement to develop heavy lift boosters in
the first place.

20 ton chunks will not get us to Mars without some sort of
orbital assembly, and only get about 1 person at a time to the
Lunar surface.

Which is a usefully arguable argument, with "traditional vendor"
answers on both sides being in the billions of dollars.

My opinion on this matter is that orbital assembly can
be simplified and looked at as a special case of the orbital
docking or berthing problem.

Yes, I agree.

Not all docking/berthing mechanisms
under consideration are suitable for high accelleration flight,

Yes, I agree on this point as well.

but many are, and the problem is simplified if you don't have to
run a pressurized hatch connection between the vehicles.

Very true, although IVA assembly is certainly do-able. Consider the
U.S., European and Japanese modules of SSF/ISS as a proof-of-concept,
if you will.

You need to connect a control run of some sort, but merely
plugging in one cable bundle manually in a minimal EVA
after the docking is not a high risk EVA activity,

True, however . . . once you set the ground rules to allow for EVA
assembly tasks of any kind, designers often start adding on other
tasks. "Since the crew is going to be outside anyway, why can't they
ALSO do . . . " It's a very slippery slope.

There are several effective ways of dealing with this,
including firing the first couple of people to suggest
that during the development program.

Creep in various areas is a sign of ineffective
management or improperly set constraints.

and there
are credible unmanned ways of doing it as well (short arm with
a plug on the end...).

Think "piston" and you've got the right idea.

Requires perfect alignment of the two units, which is not
necessarily a given for many docking mechanisms. Most will
latch across a wide range (or free range) of rotations of
the assembly.

Small multi-DOF arms are cheap and easy and could even be
redundant...

Orbital assembly at that level is not nearly as mass efficient
as more labor intensive options, but does get you around having
to build and buy a HLV.

Yes, hence my comment above.

It's adequate for Moon/Mars missions.

Exactly.

Right. As long as there's agreement that plugging
large pre-integrated modules together and connecting
a few or singular cables isn't outside the range of
reasonable off the shelf technology options,
we have nothing to argue about on that point.


-george william herbert

"Pete Lynn" wrote in message
...
"Michael P. Walsh" wrote in message
...

"Pete Lynn" wrote in message
...


Indeed, while impressive, SS1 did cost what, $20-25 million? In some
ways this was not a CATS success story. I still ask myself the
question, could the X-Prize have been won for under $10 million? If so
how? I suspect that the Armadillo type approach is potentially capable
of this, they are truly a CATS operation. Theirs is an ongoing
sustainable development path, and I think it is only a matter of time
before they eventually start meeting with major success.

Well, probably a matter of a very long time. And it will depend on
just how many resources John Carmack is willing to expend on
the program.


Armadillo seemingly reached a dead end on the
monopropellant H2O2 engine and has moved on to
LO2-kerosene. I suspect they have a long program
of engine development ahead of them. This is due
quite a bit to their limited resources and available
expertise.

Indeed, though I am sure they will make steady progress.

I assume John Carmack is too intelligent to risk his
financial health on some kind of attempt to provide a
low cost propulsion system or manned operating
space vehicle.

I think this actually is his intent, though I am sure that he will not
risk life or limb on anything that is unsafe or unviable.

Risk of ambiguosly wording a reply in a newsgroup.
The key words were "too intelligent to risk his financial health".
during his attempt to provide a low cost propulsion system
or manned operating space vehicle.

I assume your reply means you believe he will perservere at
developing a low cost manned operating space vehicle, not
that he will pursue a path that will risk his financial health.

I assume that John Carmack is quite serious in his development
efforts, just not convinced that he will achieve his goals.


If it happens, I am sure he will post the results on his
website.

The openness and honesty of their development has greatly impressed me,
it speaks volumes.


Pete.


I try to post with care when I am providing a critique of someone whose
efforts I greatly respect.

Sometimes I don't word things correctly and people can draw a different
conclusion than intended. Usually I can understand where the communication
went wrong after I re-read my post.

Mike Walsh

"Michael P. Walsh" wrote in message
...

I assume John Carmack is too intelligent to risk his
financial health on some kind of attempt to provide
a low cost propulsion system or manned operating
space vehicle.

I think this actually is his intent, though I am sure
that he will not risk life or limb on anything that is
unsafe or unviable.

Risk of ambiguosly wording a reply in a newsgroup.
The key words were "too intelligent to risk his
financial health" during his attempt to provide a low
cost propulsion system or manned operating space
vehicle.

Sorry for my ambiguousness. I meant to say that I think they are very
intent on providing the low cost manned space vehicle, and that they
have no intention or need to take any such risks.

One thing that might potentially compromise such financial health would
be a rash development program that lead to a serious accident for which
there might also be serious and unmitigated financial consequences.
This was one of the conclusions I was jumping to.

I suppose the point I was trying to make was that low cost development
in no way precludes due care with regard to economic viability and
public safety. The two objectives can be fairly independent.

I assume your reply means you believe he will
perservere at developing a low cost manned operating
space vehicle, not that he will pursue a path that will
risk his financial health.

Yes.

I assume that John Carmack is quite serious in his
development efforts, just not convinced that he will
achieve his goals.

They continue to make steady progress and unlike many others are not
deadline constrained. It is an open ended sustainable development
program, so it would seem to me that excepting some external difficulty,
they eventually must get somewhere. Yes, this might take a while.

Their primary concern might be, being overwhelmed by the boom/bust
competition, though I expect this unlikely. Even then they might still
carve out a niche for themselves.


Pete.

Michael P. Walsh wrote:

Well, probably a matter of a very long time. And it will depend on
just how many resources John Carmack is willing to expend on
the program.



I still like Canadian Arrow's approach- somewhere out there, von Braun
and Bonestell are smiling:
http://www.canadianarrow.com/vehicle1.htm
Now that, by God, is a rocketship!
Even landing the first stage in the sea is right out of von Braun's
Ferry Rocket ideas, and they get extra points (just like SpaceShipOne)
for using round portholes, like rocketships are supposed to have.
The pity of it all is that this gizmo could have been built around 1950,
instead of 55 years later.
The co-CEO of the corporation looks like Captain Nemo, and that is
really ubercool also: http://www.canadianarrow.com/kathuria.jpg
Right up to the time that British military aircraft start getting
mysteriously rammed by a strange black V-2 look-alike rocket launched
from inside an extinct Pacific volcano. :-D

Pat

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...


Michael P. Walsh wrote:

Well, probably a matter of a very long time. And it will depend on
just how many resources John Carmack is willing to expend on
the program.


I still like Canadian Arrow's approach- somewhere out there, von Braun and
Bonestell are smiling:
http://www.canadianarrow.com/vehicle1.htm
Now that, by God, is a rocketship!
Even landing the first stage in the sea is right out of von Braun's Ferry
Rocket ideas, and they get extra points (just like SpaceShipOne) for using
round portholes, like rocketships are supposed to have.
The pity of it all is that this gizmo could have been built around 1950,
instead of 55 years later.
The co-CEO of the corporation looks like Captain Nemo, and that is really
ubercool also: http://www.canadianarrow.com/kathuria.jpg
Right up to the time that British military aircraft start getting
mysteriously rammed by a strange black V-2 look-alike rocket launched from
inside an extinct Pacific volcano. :-D

Pat


I am somewhat concerned that Canadian Arrow's approach will lead
to some kind of disaster that will put a black mark on small scale
private space efforts.

Thank you for your reference. I see that they have done some significant
engine firing tests. However, they need a lot more effort and testing on
that escape capsule. Dropping it from a helicopter is a good first step,
but testing the escape capsule should be regarded as essential by them
before they commit to a manned launch.

At least now they aren't pushing to make an X-Prize date so they
should be able to concentrate on getting things to work without cutting
corners in hopes of winning a prize.

Mike Walsh