Bezos' Blue Origin revealed!

"Eric Chomko" wrote:

:
:
:On Jan 8, 4:25 pm, (Rand Simberg) wrote:
: On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 15:16:00 -0600, in a place far, far away, Pat
: Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
: such a way as to indicate that:
:
: Apparently you haven't been paying attention.
:
: NASA isn't some fiendish force squashing spaceflight, NASA is just smart
: enough to put its money into companies that it knows have a good chance
: of succeeding based on past experience, rather than on some new start-up
: that has a lot of really innovative and wild ideas, combined with just
: about zero experience in the rocket business.As I said, apparently you haven't been paying attention. You're the
: one living in a fantasy world, one in which contractors actually
: deliver on their promises, and meet program goals, schedules and
: budgets. And that NASA officials get punished when they don't.
:
:So what is the problem, NASA, the customers or both?

Just who *ARE* NASA's 'customers' these days, Eric?

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

In article ,
Pat Flannery wrote:
6. Demonstrator with all electric (no hydraulics) actuators for engine
gimballing, aero surfaces, and etc.

The Germans tried a bomber on this concept during WW II; it came out
very heavy in comparison to a normally designed one. I think the same
might apply to a modern aircraft or rocket.

People have been moving in this direction for both missiles and aircraft,
although my impression is that the technology isn't yet entirely
satisfactory for the fast, strong actuators needed to deal with air loads.

It's been done for some in-space applications; notably, if memory serves,
the Centaur on the current Atlases is all-electric.

NASA was persistently *interested* in this as a shuttle upgrade -- the
orbiter's hydrazine APUs are headaches in various ways -- but funding
never materialized, and I'm told that the technology was always a little
bit iffy.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...


Jeff Findley wrote:
Pretty much. The scientific method was pretty much thrown out of the
door when they designed, built, and ran that abomination. It was a big
disappointment to those of us who actually expected it to produce some
sort of usable scientific data which would apply to the earth.


I was half expecting it to have dolphins in it. :-)

Nah, they knew all along it wasn't going to work

"Henry Spencer" wrote in message
...
People have been moving in this direction for both missiles and aircraft,
although my impression is that the technology isn't yet entirely
satisfactory for the fast, strong actuators needed to deal with air loads.

It's been done for some in-space applications; notably, if memory serves,
the Centaur on the current Atlases is all-electric.

NASA was persistently *interested* in this as a shuttle upgrade -- the
orbiter's hydrazine APUs are headaches in various ways -- but funding
never materialized, and I'm told that the technology was always a little
bit iffy.

Which is why I think they should be looking into this as an R&D project, not
a shuttle upgrade. That and I thought on the shuttle they were looking into
electric APU's and would keep the remainder of the hydraulics. Not quite
the same thing as all electric actuators.

It may very well be that all electric actuators simply aren't appropriate
for most aerospace applications, but that's why they call it R&D. Sometimes
new technology just doesn't pan out.

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)

On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 09:19:32 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Jeff
Findley" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

NASA was persistently *interested* in this as a shuttle upgrade -- the
orbiter's hydrazine APUs are headaches in various ways -- but funding
never materialized, and I'm told that the technology was always a little
bit iffy.

Which is why I think they should be looking into this as an R&D project, not
a shuttle upgrade. That and I thought on the shuttle they were looking into
electric APU's and would keep the remainder of the hydraulics. Not quite
the same thing as all electric actuators.

It may very well be that all electric actuators simply aren't appropriate
for most aerospace applications, but that's why they call it R&D. Sometimes
new technology just doesn't pan out.

I suspect that Moog spent quite a bit of IR&D on this, back in the
eighties and nineties, in hope of getting an EMA contract for a
Shuttle upgrade. They probably still attempt to market it to people
contemplating building new vehicles.

On Jan 9, 9:34 pm, (Henry Spencer) wrote:
It's been done for some in-space applications; notably, if memory serves,
the Centaur on the current Atlases is all-electric.

NASA was persistently *interested* in this as a shuttle upgrade -- the
orbiter's hydrazine APUs are headaches in various ways -- but funding
never materialized, and I'm told that the technology was always a little
bit iffy.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

The electric auxillary power unit EAPU, was canceled due budgetary
reasons.

2002 NASA'S FISCAL YEAR 2003 BUDGET REQUEST HEARING BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH
CONGRESS SECOND SESSION FEBRUARY 27, 2002ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING
QUESTIONS
Responses to written questions submitted by Congressman Nick Lampson
resulting from the February 27, 2002, hearing Q3c. If the rationale is
that some of the safety upgrades money is needed for safety-related
infrastructure problems at the Cape and elsewhere, isn't that
equivalent to saying that you have decided to cannibalize one part of
the Shuttle safety program to help another part? Wouldn't the more
responsible action as Administrator be to increase the overall Shuttle
budget so that NASA doesn't have to choose which unsafe condition it is
willing to tolerate in the Shuttle program?

A3c. To stay within the President's FY 2003 budget plan, funds must be
balanced across the entire Agency. NASA has attempted to optimize the
Space Shuttle Safety Upgrades program for maximum safety benefit within
the time horizon, the amounts appropriated, and approved funding plans.

Q4a. One of the cancelled upgrades was the Electric APU project.

From the perspective of reducing total risks in the Shuttle
program, the Electric APU upgrade has been identified as having one of
the highest impacts on mission safety. If the upgrade is so critical in
terms of reducing overall risk to the Shuttle, why was it cancelled?

A4a. Today the Space Shuttle fleet is as safe to fly as we can humanly
make it prior to committing to each and every launch. Our commitment
remains to continually increase safety and reduce risk by implementing
high priority upgrades where technologically feasible. NASA determined
that the Electric Auxiliary Power Unit (EAPU) upgrade, while having
high potential for risk reduction, was not ready to proceed with
implementation due to technical immaturity in several areas. Some of
that technology may mature in the coming years under the Space Launch
Initiative (SLI). Should that occur and a replacement vehicle for
Shuttle still be unavailable, NASA may revisit the relative priority of
this upgrade.
Q4b. If it was cancelled because the technology wasn't advanced enough,
have you instituted a technology program to enable you to restart the
Electric APU program as soon as is feasible from a technical and
cost-fidelity standpoint?

A4b. There is a minor technology effort currently under way for FY
2002. This effort includes an EAPU Battery technology assessment
requirements reduction study, as well as project documentation to allow
for potential reuse at a later date. FY03 direction is dependent on
technical results from this year's activities, priority relative to
other potential investments and Program needs.

Q4c. If so, what is the annual funding budgeted for that technology
program, and when will you be able to restart the Electric APU effort?

A4c. There is a minor technology effort currently under way for $4
million in FY 2002. FY03 direction will be based on results from this
year's activities, priority relative to other potential investments and
Program needs.

Q4d. If not, why not, given the risk reduction potential of the
upgrade?

A4d. FY03 budget direction will be based on results from this year's
activities, priority relative to other potential investments and
Program needs. The results of this year's activities will not be
available until later this year. NASA is currently assessing potential
upgrades and supportability investments that may be required to
maintain the Space Shuttle fleet capability to fly safely through 2020,
and EAPU will be included in that assessment."


JOINT HEARING WITH
SENATE COMMERCE, SCIENCE AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE
and HOUSE SCIENCE COMMITTEE
ON COLUMBIA DISASTER AND THE FUTURE OF NASA
WASHINGTON D.C.
February 12, 2003
WITNESS: Sean O'Keefe NASA Administrator

U.S. Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) :But one of the questions I have for you,
administrator is as we look at what we should do to make sure that the
risks are minimized, were there any safety upgrade proposals ever made
to you, either as administrator or in your prior life over at the OMB,
that you did not support? And if so, what were those recommendations?
And why did you reach the conclusion that you did?
O'KEEFE: Not that I'm aware of. But I certainly will review the history
of both of my capacities in the course of this administration and
ascertain the dates of when there were any deferrals or anything else
of any upgrades that would be categorized as exclusively focused on
safety. So to my knowledge, we have not done so.
The only issues I am aware of is an electric auxiliary power unit
upgrade that had been planned that was determined to be technically
deficient and wasn't--so in other words, no amount of money we threw at
it was going to yield its performance in the manner in which it would
contribute to not only efficiency, but also safety
characterization--that was deferred and we're now reexamining to figure
out how we can pick that up or continue it in the future that would
yield the performance requirements we know of.
But we will go back. And I will submit for the record any other changes
that were made during the course of--well, since Inauguration Day,
2001. And if there are any changes that have occurred in that time, we
will certainly report those.
LOFGREN: So you will go back and review the record and take a look at
your--obviously, hindsight is 20/20 and we're all doing that in terms
of our own activities--what you recommended, both at OMB and in your
role as NASA administrator.
O'KEEFE: I'll do my best.
LOFGREN: Thank you very much. And my time is up, Mr. Chairman."



GAO/NSIAD/GGD-00-186 Space Shuttle Human Capital Challenges
Page 19
"Appendix II
Space Shuttle Upgrades Appendix II
NASA has identified a set of potential shuttle upgrades to be
incorporated by fiscal year 2005. The program includes potential
improvements to every major area of the shuttle system. A breakout of
the planned modifications is shown in table 1. Table 1: Potential Space
Shuttle Upgrades Dollars in millions Upgrade area Purpose of upgrade
Estimated cost Electric auxiliary power Unit Eliminates use of
hazardous fuel and high-speed equipment to generate power for the
orbiter's hydraulic system $224.0 Solid rocket booster auxiliary power
unit Eliminates the use of hazardous fuel in the solid rocket booster
thrust vector control auxiliary power unit $208.0"


tom

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 19:35:31 -0500, in a place far, far away,
"Jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

Well, give me some figures on how the economic math of this all works;
last time you did that you showed a nice little study that was financed
by a space advocacy group (The Futron Study), which wasn't exactly
unbiased in my opinion.

Futron is not a "space advocacy group."

rest of nonsense snipped

You still haven't explained why you're so invested in the notion that
there is no market for space tourists that you indulge in nonsensical
and narcissistic arguments about it.



When I look at a company like spacedev, I see a company
that would go into the red if they hired another three or
four people.

How in the world would you "see that"?

PMJI, but paying their salaries based upon loans and not generating any
revenue before they quit and therefore defaulting on the loans. That
would put the company in the red.

Rand, why don't you see how many banks, lending companies and venture
capitalists are willing to loan money for commercial spaceflight as a
barometer to the industry.


I see a stock that defines the notion of
high risk. Those that invest in such stocks had better
be well practiced at the old pump-and-dump.

Many high-risk stocks have turned into economic powerhouses, making
great amounts of money for their owners. Thanks for displaying once
again you economic and financial ignorance.

But how many more Nukos are there than Apples?


As such stocks are all about making a fast buck
after some cheap hype.

Nonsense.

Here Rand is stating that the Dot Com boom didn't precede a Dot Com
bust.


rest of nonsense snipped unread.

I sure as hell wouldn't lend you a dime, Rand, as you clearly are a
financial idiot when it comes to managing more than your checkbook,
though you probably need help with it too.

Eric

Fred J. McCall wrote:
h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

:On Tue, 09 Jan 2007 00:58:10 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Greg D.
:Moore \(Strider\)" made the phosphor
n my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
:
:We don't care about who can or has done worse. We care about those who have
:done better which is exactly who in the past 40 years/
:
:Who has been given money to try?

So private industry could do better, if only it wasn't private
industry at all but was just another baby on the national teat?

Sometimes you make very little sense, Rand...

Yes, it takes one to know on in this case. Fred, you are more like Rand
than you know.

Eric


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

Fred J. McCall wrote:
"Eric Chomko" wrote:

:
:
:On Jan 8, 4:25 pm, (Rand Simberg) wrote:
: On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 15:16:00 -0600, in a place far, far away, Pat
: Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
: such a way as to indicate that:
:
: Apparently you haven't been paying attention.
:
: NASA isn't some fiendish force squashing spaceflight, NASA is just smart
: enough to put its money into companies that it knows have a good chance
: of succeeding based on past experience, rather than on some new start-up
: that has a lot of really innovative and wild ideas, combined with just
: about zero experience in the rocket business.As I said, apparently you haven't been paying attention. You're the
: one living in a fantasy world, one in which contractors actually
: deliver on their promises, and meet program goals, schedules and
: budgets. And that NASA officials get punished when they don't.
:
:So what is the problem, NASA, the customers or both?

Just who *ARE* NASA's 'customers' these days, Eric?

Should have read "NASA, contractors or both". NASA IS the customer in
this the context.

NASA has foriegn countries, such as Japan, as customers.


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

Terrell Miller wrote:
"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

Pretty much. The scientific method was pretty much thrown out of the door
when they designed, built, and ran that abomination.

that and no Jenny Aggutter...

....the girl from the 'Logan's Run' film?


--
Terrell Miller


"Just...take...the...****ing...flower...darlin g"
Terrell's dating style according to OKCupid.com