Could Dragon have been built 20 years sooner?

On May 25, 3:33*pm, bob haller wrote:
was the breakthru just a awesome idea? or breakthus in materials
engines etc that made it possible?

Yes, the Falcon 9 and Dragon could have been built even 30 years ago.
There is nothing particularly innovative about their engines or
stages. They both use methods known about since the 1970's.

Bob Clark

"Robert Clark" wrote:

bob haller wrote:
was the breakthru just a awesome idea? or breakthus in
materials engines etc that made it possible?

Bob Clark wrote:
Yes, the Falcon 9 and Dragon could have been built
even 30 years ago.
There is nothing particularly innovative about their
engines or stages. They both use methods known
about since the 1970's.

hanson wrote:
Yeah, there are very few new material/tech novos.
It's still all old Penemuende Nazi Rocket Technology,
AND...
if you guys have ever done any biz with NASA
or worked there, it should be clear to you that the
breakthrough for Space-X etc is their MO NOT
to bloat themselves with nepotistic, corrupt and
bizarre bureaucracies which do exist in NASA &
& other Govt Agencies, & especially in EPA.

In article ,
Robert Clark wrote:
On May 25, 3:33=A0pm, bob haller wrote:
was the breakthru just a awesome idea? or breakthus in materials
engines etc that made it possible?

Yes, the Falcon 9 and Dragon could have been built even 30 years ago.
There is nothing particularly innovative about their engines or
stages. They both use methods known about since the 1970's.

They're made out of high-end aluminium-lithium alloys of a kind not
developed until the nineties, assembled using friction stir welding
(because they're otherwise unweldable), a technology which wasn't
invented until 1992.

Tom

On Tue, 29 May 2012 08:39:24 -0700 (PDT), Robert Clark
wrote:

On May 25, 3:33*pm, bob haller wrote:
was the breakthru just a awesome idea? or breakthus in materials
engines etc that made it possible?

Yes, the Falcon 9 and Dragon could have been built even 30 years ago.
There is nothing particularly innovative about their engines or
stages. They both use methods known about since the 1970's.

Bob Clark
When I saw the success of space X. I thought gosh this is wonderful,
what a great way for Mr. Musk to spend his big Internet money.
But then I saw that he was given $400 million(!) seed money and that
the government has contracted for 12 lifts at $100 million apiece!!

Why aren't these negotiations made open air so taxpayers could have a
say? This is a preposterous waste of money. I didn't know NASA had
that much money left. It sounds like we could have done better using
Russia although I don't know how much they charged or whether they
would continue.

It looks to me like these expenditures should first have to pass the
muster of right thinking citizenry and that NASA is clearly in no way
qualified to negotiate prices like that.

John Polasek

In article ,
says...

In article ,
Robert Clark wrote:
On May 25, 3:33=A0pm, bob haller wrote:
was the breakthru just a awesome idea? or breakthus in materials
engines etc that made it possible?

Yes, the Falcon 9 and Dragon could have been built even 30 years ago.
There is nothing particularly innovative about their engines or
stages. They both use methods known about since the 1970's.

They're made out of high-end aluminium-lithium alloys of a kind not
developed until the nineties, assembled using friction stir welding
(because they're otherwise unweldable), a technology which wasn't
invented until 1992.

In the 70's, you'd use an existing aluminum alloy and existing
manufacturing techniques. Certainly Al-Li is better, but not so much so
that it's an enabling technology.

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

Jeff Findley scribbled something on Tuesday the 5/29/2012:
In article ,
says...

In article
, Robert
Clark wrote:
On May 25, 3:33=A0pm, bob haller wrote:
was the breakthru just a awesome idea? or breakthus in materials
engines etc that made it possible?

Yes, the Falcon 9 and Dragon could have been built even 30 years ago.
There is nothing particularly innovative about their engines or
stages. They both use methods known about since the 1970's.

They're made out of high-end aluminium-lithium alloys of a kind not
developed until the nineties, assembled using friction stir welding
(because they're otherwise unweldable), a technology which wasn't
invented until 1992.

In the 70's, you'd use an existing aluminum alloy and existing
manufacturing techniques. Certainly Al-Li is better, but not so much so
that it's an enabling technology.

Well, that's just one of a *number* of small advances that contribute
to the technology, but I bet the real enabler is more like the
workstation sitting on your desk.

/dps

--
Who, me? And what lacuna?

On May 29, 8:39*am, Robert Clark wrote:
On May 25, 3:33*pm, bob haller wrote:

was the breakthru just a awesome idea? or breakthus in materials
engines etc that made it possible?

*Yes, the Falcon 9 and Dragon could have been built even 30 years ago.
There is nothing particularly innovative about their engines or
stages. They both use methods known about since the 1970's.

* *Bob Clark

That's not the relevant question. The *actual* question is that of
whether and how regulations concerning airflight and the passage
through airspace suborbital and orbital flight could have been passed
20 years ago. The actions on extending the FAA authority in the US
were only starting up in the late 1990's, as far as I'm aware. The
first suborbital licenses were granted some time in the early 2000's
or maybe late 1990's. The whole private industry was starting to take
off alongside this starting in the 1990's (e.g. that famous rotor
rocket c. 1999) and it's been going on unabated since. It's already
getting on 20 years ago now.

In article mn.f3b77dc5fbeb7f54.127094@snitoo,
says...

Jeff Findley scribbled something on Tuesday the 5/29/2012:
In article ,
says...

In article
, Robert
Clark wrote:
On May 25, 3:33=A0pm, bob haller wrote:
was the breakthru just a awesome idea? or breakthus in materials
engines etc that made it possible?

Yes, the Falcon 9 and Dragon could have been built even 30 years ago.
There is nothing particularly innovative about their engines or
stages. They both use methods known about since the 1970's.

They're made out of high-end aluminium-lithium alloys of a kind not
developed until the nineties, assembled using friction stir welding
(because they're otherwise unweldable), a technology which wasn't
invented until 1992.

In the 70's, you'd use an existing aluminum alloy and existing
manufacturing techniques. Certainly Al-Li is better, but not so much so
that it's an enabling technology.

Well, that's just one of a *number* of small advances that contribute
to the technology, but I bet the real enabler is more like the
workstation sitting on your desk.

It can be an enabler, in the right hands, with the right inputs. I
write CAE code for a living (been doing it for more than 20 years), so I
know what I'm talking about when I say that any engineering software is
only as good as the (user) inputs. As we've said for decades in the my
industry, "Garbage in, garbage out".

Of course there is no real substitute for building and testing hardware.
Most importantly, IMHO, test data is critical as input to your CAE
program for your next design iteration. Without building and testing
hardware (which includes instrumenting the test hardware), all of the
simulations in the world don't help much, because you'll never know for
sure how closely they model reality.

SpaceX did *a lot* of real world testing during the development of the
Merlin engine. It was a critical part of the success of their engine
development program (again, IMHO).

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

*Yes, the Falcon 9 and Dragon could have been built even 30 years ago.
There is nothing particularly innovative about their engines or
stages. They both use methods known about since the 1970's.

* *Bob Clark


I have sked that question some time ago yet I am still yearning for
your opinions: Do you believe that Falcon Heavy will be as potent and
as cheap to make a breakthrough? And what about other claims of Mr.
Musk ,especially concerning Mars Landing using Dragon
spacecrafts.....Are they reliable?

On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 05:20:15 -0700 (PDT), trident
wrote:



*Yes, the Falcon 9 and Dragon could have been built even 30 years ago.
There is nothing particularly innovative about their engines or
stages. They both use methods known about since the 1970's.

* *Bob Clark


I have sked that question some time ago yet I am still yearning for
your opinions: Do you believe that Falcon Heavy will be as potent and
as cheap to make a breakthrough? And what about other claims of Mr.
Musk ,especially concerning Mars Landing using Dragon
spacecrafts.....Are they reliable?

I could well have been built 30 years later, or not at all,
nobody would miss it.

w.