Could Dragon have been built 20 years sooner?

"Alan Erskine" wrote in message
ond.com...
On 26/05/2012 8:04 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
In ,
says...

In igpond.com,
says...

On 26/05/2012 5:33 AM, bob haller wrote:
was the breakthru just a awesome idea? or breakthus in materials
engines etc that made it possible?

It was not possible to do this 20 years ago. It was a combination
of
ideas, ability, timing, maturity (of systems, burorcracies and
politics)
as well as the need for all this to be happening.

I approached the question from a technology point of view. As far
as
the tech goes, what was missing 20 years ago? Given the proper
focus on
low cost access to space, what tech was missing from Falcon 9 or
even
Dragon?

I think achieving what Falcon 9 and Dragon has done is more a
function
of the organization and management keeping low cost as its focus.

Quote from today's press conference (covered on NASA TV):

Q: What was different about working with a private
corporation compared to a government agency?

A: Approach with ESA and JAXA: we provided them with
requirements and expected the governments to work
with contractors to ensure they met the build to
requirements. SpaceX approach didn't involve a
government entity. Engineers would speak to engineers
to explain why we do things the way we do. SpaceX
would tell us how they would accomplish the same
objectives.

Still doesn't explain Boeing and LockMart.

Boeing and LockMart are enormous behemoths with ditto overheads which
need billions in revenue just to screw in a lightbulb. Since the
government is cutting back on spending they've become lobsided and
haven't brought their costs in line with revenue fast enough.

Hasn't anyone noticed that Boeing still haven't given a cost estimate
for the development and production of CST-100? It's because it will be
in the several billion range with a per launch cost of probably $300-
$400 million a pop, not too far from Shuttle's $500 million per flight.

SpaceX is nearly done with the development of a man-rated Dragon /
Falcon9 and it's already proven itself remarkably well with both 3 out
of 3 for Falcon 9 launches and the successful berthing of Dragon to
ISS. All this for less than $800 million in development costs! Also,
I'm impressed at the rate SpaceX is evolving its hardware. The Falcon 9
and before it the Falcon 1 have gone though continuous upgrading and
the company is churning out new ideas a yearly basis, like Falcon
Heavy. I'm very interested if they'll succeed in building a reusable
booster stage and Dragon capsule.

I believe that the U.S. government should really give SpaceX the
opportunity to develop a Saturn V class launcher (tentatively named
Falcon XX). It's a bet, but one that can be justified with the current
trackrecord. It's either that or muddling forward with the $20 billion
Senate Launch System, which is basically a rehashed Shuttle but which
is taking more than a decade to develop.

On 28/05/2012 6:20 AM, Nomen Nescio wrote:

Boeing and LockMart are enormous behemoths with ditto overheads which
need billions in revenue just to screw in a lightbulb. Since the
government is cutting back on spending they've become lobsided and
haven't brought their costs in line with revenue fast enough.


Coward

In sci.space.policy message
, Sun, 27 May 2012 22:20:05, Nomen Nescio posted:

I believe that the U.S. government should really give SpaceX the
opportunity to develop a Saturn V class launcher (tentatively named
Falcon XX). It's a bet, but one that can be justified with the current
trackrecord. It's either that or muddling forward with the $20 billion
Senate Launch System, which is basically a rehashed Shuttle but which
is taking more than a decade to develop.


No.

They've needed to deal with the USG, for obvious reasons, in developing
Dragon for ISS supply, and they will need to do so for ISS crew.

They do not seem to have had so much, publicly, to deal with the USG in
respect of Falcon 9 Heavy - I guess that they can see a market for what
it can do - big black USG sats, maybe modules for ISS, Bigelow hotels.

Let them get on with XX, using money earned with F9 - then, when ready,
they can offer an XX launch for less than the cost of yet another year's
development of SLS.

Of course, they must prove sufficient range safety to the USG;
the sensible way to do that would be to launch from Kourou, far
away from any significant numbers of US voters. Or from SHAR.

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms and links;
Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.

In article ,
says...

"Alan Erskine" wrote in message
ond.com...
On 26/05/2012 8:04 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
In ,
says...

In igpond.com,
says...

On 26/05/2012 5:33 AM, bob haller wrote:
was the breakthru just a awesome idea? or breakthus in materials
engines etc that made it possible?

It was not possible to do this 20 years ago. It was a combination
of
ideas, ability, timing, maturity (of systems, burorcracies and
politics)
as well as the need for all this to be happening.

I approached the question from a technology point of view. As far
as
the tech goes, what was missing 20 years ago? Given the proper
focus on
low cost access to space, what tech was missing from Falcon 9 or
even
Dragon?

I think achieving what Falcon 9 and Dragon has done is more a
function
of the organization and management keeping low cost as its focus.

Quote from today's press conference (covered on NASA TV):

Q: What was different about working with a private
corporation compared to a government agency?

A: Approach with ESA and JAXA: we provided them with
requirements and expected the governments to work
with contractors to ensure they met the build to
requirements. SpaceX approach didn't involve a
government entity. Engineers would speak to engineers
to explain why we do things the way we do. SpaceX
would tell us how they would accomplish the same
objectives.

Still doesn't explain Boeing and LockMart.

Boeing and LockMart are enormous behemoths with ditto overheads which
need billions in revenue just to screw in a lightbulb. Since the
government is cutting back on spending they've become lobsided and
haven't brought their costs in line with revenue fast enough.

This has been true in the past due to the way that the US Government has
structured its contracts. That doesn't mean that we have to keep doing
business this way forever.

Hasn't anyone noticed that Boeing still haven't given a cost estimate
for the development and production of CST-100? It's because it will be
in the several billion range with a per launch cost of probably $300-
$400 million a pop, not too far from Shuttle's $500 million per flight.

It will be very interesting to see what Boeing comes up with for CST-
100. They're *not* producing this under a typical cost-plus government
contract. They know very well they have to compete with the likes of
SpaceX and Dragon.

SpaceX is nearly done with the development of a man-rated Dragon /
Falcon9 and it's already proven itself remarkably well with both 3 out
of 3 for Falcon 9 launches and the successful berthing of Dragon to
ISS. All this for less than $800 million in development costs! Also,
I'm impressed at the rate SpaceX is evolving its hardware. The Falcon 9
and before it the Falcon 1 have gone though continuous upgrading and
the company is churning out new ideas a yearly basis, like Falcon
Heavy. I'm very interested if they'll succeed in building a reusable
booster stage and Dragon capsule.

What SpaceX has done so far is quite impressive, but they have not yet
finished a manned Dragon design. It's always possible that they might
run into snags along the way (technical, economic, political,
governmental, etc.).

I believe that the U.S. government should really give SpaceX the
opportunity to develop a Saturn V class launcher (tentatively named
Falcon XX). It's a bet, but one that can be justified with the current
trackrecord. It's either that or muddling forward with the $20 billion
Senate Launch System, which is basically a rehashed Shuttle but which
is taking more than a decade to develop.

That's not going to happen politically. The politicians *want* to spend
billions a year in their districts, just like shuttle. It's all in the
name of jobs. :-P

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

Could Dragon have been built 20 years sooner?

I love these backward looking questions. Their answer is always simple: No.

The justification for such a simple answer is self-evident. Dragon did not exist twenty years earlier for many reasons, technical
and non-technical.

Dave

In article , nospam@
127.0.0.1 says...

Could Dragon have been built 20 years sooner?

I love these backward looking questions. Their answer is always simple: No.

The justification for such a simple answer is self-evident. Dragon did not exist twenty years earlier for many reasons, technical
and non-technical.

True, but it's useful to look back and ask *why* it couldn't, or didn't,
happen. The big issues could have been economic, technical, regulatory,
and etc. Identifying the big roadblocks can help to shape future space
policy, which is what this group is all about.

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 writes:

True, but it's useful to look back and ask *why* it couldn't, or didn't,
happen. The big issues could have been economic, technical, regulatory,
and etc. Identifying the big roadblocks can help to shape future space
policy, which is what this group is all about.

I think with Falcon 9 and Dragon just the heavier alloys, no composites
and heavier avionics of the 70's could easily have led to a net payload
reduction deep enough to not bother with building that thing at all
exactly the same way.


Jochem

--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

In article , says...

Jeff Findley writes:

True, but it's useful to look back and ask *why* it couldn't, or didn't,
happen. The big issues could have been economic, technical, regulatory,
and etc. Identifying the big roadblocks can help to shape future space
policy, which is what this group is all about.

I think with Falcon 9 and Dragon just the heavier alloys, no composites
and heavier avionics of the 70's could easily have led to a net payload
reduction deep enough to not bother with building that thing at all
exactly the same way.

True payloads would have been lower, for the same size vehicle. But the
engine and vehicle size could have been scaled up a bit in the 70's in
order to make up the difference. Cost scales largely with complexity,
not size. Keeping the engines, tankage, and etc. as simple as possible
(for the technology of the time) would still have been the key to
success.

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