The Technological Stagnation of Human Culture

Except for extreme exceptions, we don't separate freight and crew.

We do seperate freight and passenger transport. Crew is a different matter.

Pretty much any shuttle flight has needed the crew to go with the cargo.

That's because the shuttle was there, not because it was or is the best
way of doing things. If that were so, Progress and ATV would not exist.

Jan

On Nov 16, 4:00 am, Ian Parker wrote:
On 16 Nov, 00:39, "Peter H." wrote:



The Technological Stagnation of Human Culture

The below article is the synthesis of two articles on which I have
been writing simultaneously. I put them together in order to hint at
the recent historical context of the forthcoming retirement of the
Space Shuttle.

To begin with, I would like to make clear that when I talk about
technological stagnation, will be referring myself to what I define as
macroscopic engineering, or macroengineering for short.
Macroengineering is not electrical engineering. Nor is it nanoscopic
nor bioengineering, since the latter is based on genes.
Macroengineering can be defined as classical engineering, since it
exists at least since Roman times. And with a few exeptions like the
Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN, today it clearly is aerospace
engineering which harbours the greatest developmental challenges of
all branches of macroengineering. And in aerospace technology, it
naturally is the transporation of people which places the highest
technological demands. As a consequence, this is also the potentially
most expensive of all branches of engineering.

And in terms of a philosophical sidenote, machines can well be
considered as the most astonishing product of terrestrial life.
Together with ideology and economy, machines are one of the three
major forces shaping cultural evolution.

Possibly only a few of you will be aware of what kind of twentieth
anniversary we have had yesterday: On the 15th of November 1988
ocurred the first and only orbital flight of the Soviet Space Shuttle
Buran.

The Buran was in some ways a more advanced spacecraft than the
American Shuttle. It could carry 20% more cargo than the American
shuttle, it´s orbital maneuvering system was much more potent and it´s
only flight of two orbits was unmanned, i.e. it was fully automated.

The most beautiful images of Buran which I found on the internet are
athttp://englishrussia.com/?p=1362. The last photo, or third image
from the bottom, of that page clearly shows that the main engines of
the shuttle did not participate in the launch.

The most tragical aspect about the history of Buran is the manner of
how it ended. After the Buran program was stopped by Boris Yeltsin in
1992, the orbiter was mounted - horizontally, as is usual in Russia
and was in the Soviet Union - on top of a fully assembled Energia
rocket inside building 112 at Baikonur, so that the whole launch
configuration could be seen by visitors. After the dissolution of the
Soviet Union, Kasachstan became the owner of the Baikonur cosmodrome
and all of its contents, including the Buran.

But Kasachstan had no interest at all in the shuttle, so there was no
money for the maintaineance of building 112. And on the 12th of May
2002 the roof of the building colapsed, completely crushing the
shuttle below it and killing the 8 workers, which had finally arrived
to work on its roof. So by then, it took no more than the weight of
these 8 workers to collapse the roof. And as you can see at 45º55´41"N
63º17´52"E on Google Earth, this roof has remained unrepaired up to
the present. The sad result of this incident can be seen on the pagehttp://www.buran.fr/bourane-buran/bourane-fin.php. For me, the most
depressing among these images is "hangar11-grand".

The Buran project was stopped at a time when Russia was plagued by
financial problems.. I have not found any information which could
reveal whether it´s demise might have been due solely to the lack of
capital, or also due to the lack of appreciation and the resulting
will to somehow keep the project alive. At any rate, the Buran project
was as costly as was to be expected: Between 14.5 and 20 billion
Rubles, as estimated on pagehttp://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/spacecraft/q0153.shtml
. The Soviet Union saw above all a military threat in the American
Space Shuttle, so the construction of Buran was primarily motivated by
trying to counter that threat. With the dissolution of the Soviet
Union, this primary motivation was also gone. Nonwithstanding, the
demise of this exellent piece of engineering was a sign for the times
to come.

Interesting that Buran had LIQUID fuelled boosters where the Shuttle
(and Ariane 5) uses solid fuel. You could have put wings on them -
like the proposal on Ariane 5.

As the next great technological loss after Buran I would consider the
Lockheed SR-71, which had its last flight on October 9th 1999. It was
a military aircraft, but it was unarmed. This is significant because
today - and in distinction to manned spaceflight - arms must be
considered as culturally counterproductive "achievements" of our
species. And even though, according to Wikipedia, the SR-71 had only
23% of the enormous range of 23,400km of the Global Hawk, it could
outrun rockets (Mach 3.2+ vs. 650km/h for the Global Hawk) and flew
30% higher than the Global Hawk (25,900m). And it had stealth
properties. As always, the price tag played a role in it´s demise. But
in this case personal motives and a lack of attitude were causes so
obvious, that I can hardly add anything to this subject here. Instead,
I invite you to read what is said on the page athttp://www.area51zone.com/aircraft/sr71.shtmlaboutthis issue.

What about Aurora? A hpersonic plane (faster at any rate than the
SR71) has been built. A UFO has been clocked by the RAF at Mach 5-6.

http://www.fas.org/irp/mystery/auror...rora_(aircraft)

However I am perhaps begging the question. Aurora has been cancelled.



After that, the next great loss was surely that of the Concorde, which
had one fatal accident in its 27 years of service on the 25th of July
2000, and which had its last flight on the 22nd of October 2003. Due
to the sonic boom issue, the Concorde had ended up as a medium range
(max. 7,250km) trans-oceanic airplane, which is sort of a
contradiction in terms. It could not reach South America from London,
and thus became a single route airplane between London/Paris and New
York. Nevertheless, it was ludicrous that British Airways refused to
let Richard Branson of Virgin Atlantic Airways buy a few planes with
the argument, that only British Airways and Air France could service
that plane. But the definitive knockout for the Concorde came, when
for yet unknown reasons Airbus started to demand exorbitant prices for
Concorde spare parts, and there are persistent rumors that this was
due to a secret arrangement between Air France and Airbus (seehttp://en..wikipedia.org/wiki/Concorde).

Even though there were times when the Concorde, just like it happens
to any other passenger airplane, flew only half full, during its last
months it was completely booked out, and there were plenty of people
who were sad and angry about it´s demise (seehttp://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE2DC163AF934A25757...).
The Concorde offered the unique educational experience of letting its
passengers see the roundness of Earth and the blackness of space.

What I have searched but never found, is the reason of why charter
flights on the Concorde stopped after the July 2000 accident. Had
Richard Branson been able to make the deal with British Airways, who
knows: Pehaps there would have been Concorde flights between London
and Rio de Jainero or even Buenos Aires with a refuelling stop on
Santiago Island (Cape Verde archipelago), or perhaps even between Los
Angeles and Sidney with a refuelling stop on Kirimati Island (Line
Islands, Republic of Kiribati). These lonely and poor island republics
would quite likely have been happy to have the Concorde put them on
the map. But never mind - I´m just dreaming about what could have
been, because somebody ought to.

So should Richard Branson and his aerospace designer Burt Rutan be
able to pull off their project of the suborbital passenger vehicle
SpaceShip Two, they will deserve a monument simply for going against
the trend of our time. Supposedly, SpaceShip Two will fly next year
for the first time. But the unbelievable thing is that they say that
if SpaceShip Two will be a success, then they will plan on a SpaceShip
Three which would be orbital (seehttp://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2005/08/23/201097/spaceshipthree...).
I tend to doubt this. But if it should happen, then it will be a
tremendous slap in the face of NASA.

One basic fact is that travelling in an executive jet is far quicker
than going by airline even if the airliner travells at supersonic
speeds. Far better to land an ececutive at Manaeus say, than to go by
Concorde and then get a connecting flight. At Concorde fares executive
air travel is no more expensive.

There are areas of techology that are advancing inexorably. Computers,
the Internet and AI. The long and short of it is that Aurora is
obsolete. It is far better and cheaper to have unmanned aircraft like
the Predator. Losing an Aurora would be a setback, you reckon to mass
produce Predators and lose them.

DARPA is working on a helicopter that will land on a window sill. Able
to get in close - will provide far more information than you would get
at 20km flying at M6, difficult to shoot down, easily replacable. No
brainer really. The thrust at DARPA today is AI. AI for automated
vehicles, AI for information extraction and language translation.
There is no sign that advance will be slowed.

- Ian Parker

This topic is either a joke or a ruse. Could it be both?

LRBs are better at their getting serious payload to LEO than SRBs,
although SRBs can certainly help get the first leg accomplished faster
(as long as nothing goes terribly wrong).

~ BG

On Nov 16, 11:06 am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Ian Parker wrote:

:On 16 Nov, 12:14, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Ian Parker wrote:
:
: :On 16 Nov, 00:39, "Peter H." wrote:
: :
:
: Are there any sane people left in this newsgroup or am I just wasting
: my time?
:
:
:As I keep telling you, your own lot are insane too. DARPA is your lot.
:

A loony obsessively telling me that sane people are nuts doesn't cut a
lot of ice, Ian...

Before you go to hell, Fred, may we each fart in your LLPOF face.

~ BG

"Jan Vorbrüggen" wrote in message
...
Except for extreme exceptions, we don't separate freight and crew.

We do seperate freight and passenger transport. Crew is a different
matter.

Not in all cases. Especially not in applications where there's a limited
number of vehicles or trips already.

Consider the C-5, in addition to cargo can carry 73 passengers.

It's still possible to rent passenger space on some cargo ships, especially
if one really wants to take their time.


Pretty much any shuttle flight has needed the crew to go with the cargo.

That's because the shuttle was there, not because it was or is the best
way of doing things. If that were so, Progress and ATV would not exist.

And yet, Progress can't carry the payload up or down the shuttle can.
Neither can ATV.

Very rarely do profitable organizations throw away their transport vehicles
after arriving at their destination.

And if you want to compare the Russian/Soviet way of doing things, compare
the scale and scope of ISS to Mir. One was built (prior to US involvement)
solely by separate cargo/crew vehicles and the other one, principally with a
vehicle that included crew/cargo.

Compare usable volume, power available and other metrics.



Jan



--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

"Jan Vorbrüggen" wrote in message
...
Not really. Many jet "passenger" planes still carry a fair amount of
cargo above and beyond luggage.

Yes, aircraft are a special case, due to their design and operating
constraints.

And boats?

And in many other countries, trains still run as combinations.

But I guess they're special too.



Jan



--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

On Nov 19, 4:48*pm, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:
"Jan Vorbrüggen" wrote in message

...

Except for extreme exceptions, we don't separate freight and crew.

We do seperate freight and passenger transport. Crew is a different
matter.

Not in all cases. *Especially not in applications where there's a limited
number of vehicles or trips already.

Consider the C-5, in addition to cargo can carry 73 passengers.

It's still possible to rent passenger space on some cargo ships, especially
if one really wants to take their time.



Pretty much any shuttle flight has needed the crew to go with the cargo.

That's because the shuttle was there, not because it was or is the best
way of doing things. If that were so, Progress and ATV would not exist.

And yet, Progress can't carry the payload up or down the shuttle can.
Neither can ATV.

Very rarely do profitable organizations throw away their transport vehicles
after arriving at their destination.

Profitable communication and transmission satellites are routinely
sent up on disposable launchers and a fairing hardly constitutes a
'vehicle'. The shuttle priced itself out of the market.

And if you want to compare the Russian/Soviet way of doing things, compare
the scale and scope of ISS to Mir. *One was built (prior to US involvement)
solely by separate cargo/crew vehicles and the other one, principally with a
vehicle that included crew/cargo.

Compare usable volume, power available and other metrics.



Jan

--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

Compare cost and lives lost.

NASA's primary goal should be economic access to space. Starting
small, a flyback booster is the best way to accomplish this.

On Nov 19, 8:42 pm, Totorkon wrote:
On Nov 19, 4:48 pm, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"



wrote:
"Jan Vorbrüggen" wrote in message

...

Except for extreme exceptions, we don't separate freight and crew.

We do seperate freight and passenger transport. Crew is a different
matter.

Not in all cases. Especially not in applications where there's a limited
number of vehicles or trips already.

Consider the C-5, in addition to cargo can carry 73 passengers.

It's still possible to rent passenger space on some cargo ships, especially
if one really wants to take their time.

Pretty much any shuttle flight has needed the crew to go with the cargo.

That's because the shuttle was there, not because it was or is the best
way of doing things. If that were so, Progress and ATV would not exist.

On Nov 22, 6:05*pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Nov 19, 8:42 pm, Totorkon wrote:





On Nov 19, 4:48 pm, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"

wrote:
"Jan Vorbrüggen" wrote in message

...

Except for extreme exceptions, we don't separate freight and crew.

We do seperate freight and passenger transport. Crew is a different
matter.

Not in all cases. *Especially not in applications where there's a limited
number of vehicles or trips already.

Consider the C-5, in addition to cargo can carry 73 passengers.

It's still possible to rent passenger space on some cargo ships, especially
if one really wants to take their time.

Pretty much any shuttle flight has needed the crew to go with the cargo.

That's because the shuttle was there, not because it was or is the best
way of doing things. If that were so, Progress and ATV would not exist.

And yet, Progress can't carry the payload up or down the shuttle can.
Neither can ATV.

Very rarely do profitable organizations throw away their transport vehicles
after arriving at their destination.

Profitable communication and transmission satellites are routinely
sent up on disposable launchers and a fairing hardly constitutes a
'vehicle'. *The shuttle priced itself out of the market.

And if you want to compare the Russian/Soviet way of doing things, compare
the scale and scope of ISS to Mir. *One was built (prior to US involvement)
solely by separate cargo/crew vehicles and the other one, principally with a
vehicle that included crew/cargo.

Compare usable volume, power available and other metrics.

Jan

--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

Compare cost and lives lost.

NASA's primary goal should be economic access to space. *Starting
small, a flyback booster is the best way to accomplish this.

I'd have to 100% agree with that. *A "flyback" booster or boosters
that are liquid fueled (h2o2+synfuel) would accomplish the most
payload tonnage to LEO.

Perhaps even the 2nd stage could be of another flyback configuration.

Get that average cost down to $1000/kg, and we're back in business.

*~ Brad Guth Brad_Guth Brad.Guth BradGuth BG / “Guth Usenet”- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Peroxide/UDMH is no better than the isp of a solid booster. Cheap
kerosene, light hydrogen or liquid methane might be better choices.

I read somewhere that maintainance of the shuttle tps accounts for
half its cost. For space hardware, getting to leo is a lot more
important than getting back.

At $1K/kg the business of space would have a new beginning.

On Nov 22, 11:07 pm, Totorkon wrote:
On Nov 22, 6:05 pm, BradGuth wrote:



On Nov 19, 8:42 pm, Totorkon wrote:

On Nov 19, 4:48 pm, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"

wrote:
"Jan Vorbrüggen" wrote in message

...

Except for extreme exceptions, we don't separate freight and crew.

We do seperate freight and passenger transport. Crew is a different
matter.

Not in all cases. Especially not in applications where there's a limited
number of vehicles or trips already.

Consider the C-5, in addition to cargo can carry 73 passengers.

It's still possible to rent passenger space on some cargo ships, especially
if one really wants to take their time.

Pretty much any shuttle flight has needed the crew to go with the cargo.

That's because the shuttle was there, not because it was or is the best
way of doing things. If that were so, Progress and ATV would not exist.

And yet, Progress can't carry the payload up or down the shuttle can.