|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Moon and Mars expeditions vs. RLV development
Ool wrote:
"jeff findley" wrote in message ... "Ool" writes: Yeah. To bad the *military* has no use for a rocket that can touch down again in one piece... You're joking right? Who do you think funded the original development of the DC-X, the only reusable "rocket" that has proven through flight testing that VTVL landing of "rockets" is feasible? From the way you're formulating the question I'd hazard that the an- swer is: The military. So what use do they have for a rocket that can land softly, ass down? Launching things to orbit? They do that quite a lot. -- Sander +++ Out of cheese error +++ |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Moon and Mars expeditions vs. RLV development
Cardman wrote in message . ..
On 22 Jan 2004 17:22:49 -0800, (Christopher M. Jones) wrote: It'd be great if NASA could develop a low cost RLV. They could give that a shot if these RS-84 engines come about. Let me state this as clearly as possible. There are no technological roadblocks to creating low cost launch vehicles. None whatsoever. Not even engines. We have the engines we need on the shelf. Right now! It lacks only the right management and the right business plan to make cheaper launch vehicles a reality. But the simple, sad fact is that they *cannot* do it and very likely cannot be *made* to do it. NASA's half-assed attempts so far have left little to inspire, but since they are now serious about replacing their Shuttle, then they have gone back to the basics of what does work. It's hard to call anything "half-assed" when it costs tens of billions of dollars. Was Shuttle development "half-assed"? Or X-33? By many standards, sure. But that's the way NASA does it and giving them more money simply makes their half-assed attempts more expensive. NASA cannot do it, they would have to be forced to do it. And, as I said, I don't think they can be forced to change enough to do it. Especially not with the way civil service employment works today. Rocket and capsule. And I do not believe that it is that hard to build a reusable rocket, when with the RS-84 engines, then you just need to attach these to your rocket frame that can make a safe landing. Since NASA has never really tried to do that, then it is a little early to say if they could succeed or not. Oh, but NASA has tried. Over, and over, and over, and over again. That they don't know the right way to do it even when it's blindingly ****ing obvious is the best reason to not ever give them the money to try again! If they do, then this could well provide great advantages, when buying those expendable rockets, certainly in NASA's ideal size, are not cheap you know. And if I farted gold ever hour on the hour I'd be a very wealthy man. If directed to do it they would more than likely both fail Since NASA has been running the Shuttle for years, then until now they have not had much desire to replace it. Also it is congress who usually ends these projects by denying further funding. NASA has long been looking for alternatives to the Shuttle and for replacements as well. They spent around a billion dollars on just the "demonstrator" for a Shuttle replacement last time. All it demonstrated was that NASA knows jack about how to get into space cheaply. and hobble commercial development in that area. How so? NASA does not launch commercial payloads and I do not see any other company trying to profit from a RLV. You miss your own point! If, as you say, NASA is able to develop a low cost launch vehicle then that vehicle, or a derivative, will be the one to serve the majority of the commercial market. Look at it this way. NASA discovers the secret to low cost launch vehicles, NASA pays contractor A to develop and build said launch vehicle. Later, contractor A creates new design based off NASA's to offer commercially. Since most of the development work on said design was paid for by NASA, contractor A can sell their commercial launcher for much less than what it actually cost to make. It has happened before in different and closely related industries (especially aviation). Smart investors, which tend to be the ones with the most money to invest, though not always, know these things. The biggest problem is when NASA funds development but fails, because then the competition is driven off but nothing comes of it. It's very difficult to compete profitably with an organization which does not need to make a profit. NASA is as much in the area of competition as it is with profit. It is similarly difficult to obtain funding from investors expecting a decent rate of return when there is little hope of profit due to said destructive competition. If NASA does make a successful RLV system, then this will give others the reason to do so. See above. NASA has, to date, tried to reinvent orbital launch with *several* times, spending anywhere from a mere billion to tens of billions of dollars at each try. And always it has failed. Maybe it has never really tried to make a replacement vehicle, but all this past research will prove useful in their CEV. It *has* tried! Many times! That it's failed so catastrophically so many times, sometimes even before getting started, is an argument against, not for. X-33 is only the most recent failure. The one with the now fixed fuel tank I guess. Would that that were the only serious, debilitating flaw with that design. However, NASA can run the numbers on this one and figure out that it does not make financial sense. The most dramatic is perhaps the Shuttle itself, which was supposed to be somewhere between ten to a hundred times cheaper than it turned out to be (i.e. one of the most expensive launch vehicles ever made). Clearly NASA was not interested in reducing launch costs when they made the Shuttle, or they would not have made it. Reducing launch costs was the overarching goal of the entire Shuttle program. From its inception. The whole idea was that for the same amount of money, or less, the Shuttle would allow much more frequent trips to orbit. Thus lowering the per launch costs dramatically. This never happened. Directing NASA's activities *away* from launch vehicle development is a very, very good thing. Perhaps, but NASA will still have to develop technology that they need, but does not exist. But, hopefully, in an area where their activities will not do the most damage to private enterprise in space flight. I am fully happy for Boeing or LM build their RLV instead, at NASA's direction, when this could lower their support costs. Half the problem is that Boeing and LM don't know how to do it either! Worst case situation is that if their reusable rocket does not work out, in terms of cost per pound launched, then they can always fall back on the likes of the Delta IV-H anyway. And this isn't a bad thing?! That's not hardly the worst case scenario either. The worst case scenario is that NASA continues to hamper private launch vehicle development and we get stuck with the Delta IV and friends, and incremental improvments on such, *FOR EVER*. NASA does need a new rocket to make the Moon though. You'd be surprised. It can be done, and done well, with what we have on the shelf now. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Moon and Mars expeditions vs. RLV development
Dick Morris wrote in message ...
"Christopher M. Jones" wrote: Directing NASA's activities *away* from launch vehicle development is a very, very good thing. It's a feature, not a bug. The private sector hasn't done much better. Did you not read where I explained the poisoning effect of NASA interest in launch veicle development or did you just not understand it? |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Moon and Mars expeditions vs. RLV development
"Christopher M. Jones" wrote: Dick Morris wrote in message ... "Christopher M. Jones" wrote: Directing NASA's activities *away* from launch vehicle development is a very, very good thing. It's a feature, not a bug. The private sector hasn't done much better. Did you not read where I explained the poisoning effect of NASA interest in launch vehicle development or did you just not understand it? I've seen and heard that argument many times. If it's true, then why was there no rush to get into the RLV market after NASP went belly up? NASA's credibility, in the wake of the SEI debacle, was at an all-time low. The Shuttle was certainly no competition - commercial payloads had been booted off of the vehicle in the wake of the Challenger disaster - and X-33 didn't come along until years later. If the private sector had been just waiting for NASA to get out of the way so they could pick up the ball and run with it, that would have been a good opportunity. There were plenty of engineers in the private sector who knew how to reduce launch costs, the proper approaches being "blindingly...obvious", but it didn't happen. Boeing, and other aerospace companies, really would like to be the developer of the first true RLV. The problem is that nobody has been able to make a plausible business case, with realistic estimates of development cost and schedule, that would get past a board of directors. Existing markets are much too small to provide a return on investment, and speculative markets like tourism are not known even within an order-of-magnitude. Even if keeping NASA out of the picture, permanently, is a NECESSARY condition for enabling private sector investment in an RLV, that doesn't mean that it's a SUFFICIENT condition. The risks may just be too high for the private sector to take on - the job is going to be hard enough without having to amortize development costs. The organizations that have failed so miserably in the past should not get another chance, but there is no guarantee that tying NASA's hands completely will have the desired effect. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Moon and Mars expeditions vs. RLV development
Dick Morris wrote in message ...
Boeing, and other aerospace companies, really would like to be the developer of the first true RLV. Actually, Boeing claims it has already built a "First Generation RLV." That's Boeing's term for the Shuttle. But if you mean a launch vehicle that's actually reusable, rather than repairable, there's no evidence Boeing is interested in that. At least, not without another Shuttle-like deal, that guarantees Boeing will be paid no matter how the vehicle performs. You claim your "true RLV" would do all the things Boeing claimed the Shuttle would do. The marketing hasn't been updated in 40 years, even if the technology has. That's the problem. The biggest flaw in the Shuttle was not the technology but the markets, or lack thereof. You propose technical fixes for the Shuttle's technical problems, but ignore the fundamental economic problem. Meanwhile, Scaled Composites is testing a true RLV right now. I know you want to think it's not "true," but it's true whether you think so or not. The problem is that nobody has been able to make a plausible business case, with realistic estimates of development cost and schedule, that would get past a board of directors. As a "nobody," I see nothing wrong with that. :-) You have a severe case of the Not Invented Here Syndrome. Existing markets are much too small to provide a return on investment, and speculative markets like tourism are not known even within an order-of-magnitude. The microcomputer market was not known to within an order-of-magnitude, back in the days when mainframe companies said the government needed to invest billions to develop Fifth Generation computers. If existing markets are too small for your mainframe approach, that doesn't mean no one can succeed. There are other approaches, some of which are already providing a return on investment. Sometimes, one needs to look beyond the obvious approach of bigger, more expensive, and more elaborate. Even if keeping NASA out of the picture, permanently, is a NECESSARY condition for enabling private sector investment in an RLV, that doesn't mean that it's a SUFFICIENT condition. The risks may just be too high for the private sector to take on - the job is going to be hard enough without having to amortize development costs. Only if the development costs are too high. I don't understand your fixation on hugely expensive vehicles. The organizations that have failed so miserably in the past should not get another chance, You mean like the companies that worked on Shuttle, NASP, X-33, X-34, and X-37? If you aren't going to give those organizations another chance, who should the government give the money to? Do you think the government's going to pick a startup company to build a multi-billion dollar Shuttle Replacement? |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Moon and Mars expeditions vs. RLV development
Edward Wright wrote: Dick Morris wrote in message ... Boeing, and other aerospace companies, really would like to be the developer of the first true RLV. Actually, Boeing claims it has already built a "First Generation RLV." That's Boeing's term for the Shuttle. But if you mean a launch vehicle that's actually reusable, rather than repairable, there's no evidence Boeing is interested in that. At least, not without another Shuttle-like deal, that guarantees Boeing will be paid no matter how the vehicle performs. "First Generation RLV" is NASA's term for the Shuttle, and Boeing is quite happy to go along with whatever NASA wants. Boeing will also build whatever NASA wants, and if they want to build a fully-reusable launcher, Boeing will go all out to get the job. Boeing certainly is not going to risk it's own money to develop an RLV as long as the markets are such a small fraction of what it would take to provide a return on that investment. You claim your "true RLV" would do all the things Boeing claimed the Shuttle would do. The marketing hasn't been updated in 40 years, even if the technology has. That's the problem. The biggest flaw in the Shuttle was not the technology but the markets, or lack thereof. You propose technical fixes for the Shuttle's technical problems, but ignore the fundamental economic problem. I have been acutely aware of the fundamental economic problems for 30 years. I have also been acutely aware of all the start-up companies that have tried to solve those problems over the years, and failed. The problem with the Shuttle is that you can't develop markets unless you first have a marketable vehicle. Marketability is a technical matter. Suppose, for example, that we were to suddenly increase the airlines' average cost per flight by $1 million. Ticket prices would go up by about an order-of-magnitude, and the vast majority of the market would evaporate overnight. The Shuttle's cost-per-flight starts with that $60 million throwaway tank and goes up from there. The Shuttle's total recuring cost per flight is at least $100 million, and it can't do significantly better than that, regardless of the flight rate. If you have a system with positive feedback, any displacement will cause the system to go hard-over in the direction of the displacement. The fact that the initial diplacement is much smaller than the final, hard-over value does not mean that the displacement was unimportant. The direction of the displacement determines which direction the system will go. Our existing space transportation systems are hard-over in the direction of huge costs and miniscule markets. It is a classic example of positive feedback. Just because the total cost of a Shuttle launch, including all the fixed costs, is much larger than the costs due to the expendable and unreliable hardware does not mean that those technical issues are unimportant. We're on the wrong side of the demand curve with space transportation, and to get on the good side we need to drive recuring costs way down. Then the marketers will be able to do their thing and develop the markets, including tourism, that we need to drive costs down to low levels. Meanwhile, Scaled Composites is testing a true RLV right now. I know you want to think it's not "true," but it's true whether you think so or not. Scaled Composites is testing a true, rocket-powered airplane. I wish them luck: Getting to LEO, and back, will be about 100 times more difficult than what they have accomplished thus far. The problem is that nobody has been able to make a plausible business case, with realistic estimates of development cost and schedule, that would get past a board of directors. As a "nobody," I see nothing wrong with that. :-) You have a severe case of the Not Invented Here Syndrome. Not even a slight fever. ;-) I am strongly in favor of whatever works, and I'll take a good idea wherever I can get it. (FWIW, I have been very upset with Boeing's behavior in the space transportation area in recent years, and I let a few people know it, including our former CEO.) Existing markets are much too small to provide a return on investment, and speculative markets like tourism are not known even within an order-of-magnitude. The microcomputer market was not known to within an order-of-magnitude, back in the days when mainframe companies said the government needed to invest billions to develop Fifth Generation computers. The PC market was addressed originally by people working out of their garages. Hobbyists had already built their own computers. It was relatively easy to start small in the microcomputer market, but the price of admission to LEO markets is 8 km/sec. That is a big step, and the technical requirements of an orbital launcher cannot be addressed, reliably, on the cheap. SS1 is child's play compared to what it takes to get to LEO, and back, safely. There is never going to be a "Mom and Pop's Plumbing Supply and Launch Vehicle Company". If existing markets are too small for your mainframe approach, that doesn't mean no one can succeed. There are other approaches, some of which are already providing a return on investment. Sometimes, one needs to look beyond the obvious approach of bigger, more expensive, and more elaborate. Bigger, more expensive, and more elaborate works in a mature market like commercial aviation, but we obviously are not there yet with space. Smaller and simpler than the Shuttle, with full reusability and much higher reliability is the direction we should go right now, as far as commercial markets are concerned. Even if keeping NASA out of the picture, permanently, is a NECESSARY condition for enabling private sector investment in an RLV, that doesn't mean that it's a SUFFICIENT condition. The risks may just be too high for the private sector to take on - the job is going to be hard enough without having to amortize development costs. Only if the development costs are too high. I don't understand your fixation on hugely expensive vehicles. I don't advocate hugely expensive vehicles. My entire approach is to get costs DOWN so we can afford to do more in space. One reason I advocate VTOL is because ballistic designs are much cheaper to develop than winged designs. I advocate going to Mars with an RLV and LEO refueling to avoid throwing away billions of dollars of launch vehicle hardware on each flight, that being the only way we're going to get a long-term program. Unfortunately, we can't get low recuring costs by skimping on development cost. We did that with the Shuttle and look where it got us. That's the REAL lesson of the Shuttle. An RLV of reasonable size (~20,000 lb. payload, or more, to LEO) will cost billions to develop. I am pesimistic that the private sector can do that on it's own, but would be delighted to be proven wrong. The organizations that have failed so miserably in the past should not get another chance, You mean like the companies that worked on Shuttle, NASP, X-33, X-34, and X-37? No, the NASA organizations that ran those programs. If you aren't going to give those organizations another chance, who should the government give the money to? Do you think the government's going to pick a startup company to build a multi-billion dollar Shuttle Replacement? Certainly not. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Moon and Mars expeditions vs. RLV development
Dick Morris wrote in message ...
"First Generation RLV" is NASA's term for the Shuttle, and Boeing is quite happy to go along with whatever NASA wants. Boeing will also build whatever NASA wants, and if they want to build a fully-reusable launcher, Boeing will go all out to get the job. Boeing went all out to get X-37, too. Then what happened? When the cost of the project grew, Boeing threatened to walk away unless NASA kicked in more money. If Boeing can't complete its demonstrator on time and within budget, what makes you think a fully reusable launcher that's hundreds of times larger would be a piece of cake? I have been acutely aware of the fundamental economic problems for 30 years. If you understood the problem, you wouldn't advocate building another Shuttle -- ballistic VTOL or not. No technical fix that can overcome the fact that there isn't enough demand to justify that kind of vehicle. You can't make 1 plus 1 equal 4, no matter what technology you come up with. Meanwhile, Scaled Composites is testing a true RLV right now. I know you want to think it's not "true," but it's true whether you think so or not. Scaled Composites is testing a true, rocket-powered airplane. Then why is AST evaluating their launch license application? AST doesn't license airplanes, they license launch vehicles. I wish them luck: Getting to LEO, and back, will be about 100 times more difficult than what they have accomplished thus far. So? Are you making some Kennedy-esque point, that we ought to do this just because it's hard? Not even a slight fever. ;-) I am strongly in favor of whatever works, and I'll take a good idea wherever I can get it. Are you the same Dick Morris who said his idea was "the only way"? The PC market was addressed originally by people working out of their garages. Hobbyists had already built their own computers. It was relatively easy to start small in the microcomputer market, but the price of admission to LEO markets is 8 km/sec. Your fever seems to have progressed to the next stage -- "LEO on the brain." :-) If getting to LEO is so hard and the rewards are so small, doesn't that suggest you may have picked the wrong destination? You sound like a guy in 1904 telling Orville and Wilber they're wasting their time because the only "true airplanes" are those with trans-Pacific range. Bigger, more expensive, and more elaborate works in a mature market like commercial aviation, but we obviously are not there yet with space. Smaller and simpler than the Shuttle, with full reusability and much higher reliability is the direction we should go right now, as far as commercial markets are concerned. Simpler and smaller than the Shuttle surely describes Spaceship One, doesn't it? So, what's your hang up there, again? I don't advocate hugely expensive vehicles. Yes, you contradict yourself in the very next paragraph -- "will cost billions to develop." My entire approach is to get costs DOWN so we can afford to do more in space. One reason I advocate VTOL is because ballistic designs are much cheaper to develop than winged designs. Who do you work for again? Wings typically account for about 20% of the weight (and therefore cost) of a vehicle. A 20% cost saving won't begin to close the gap between the demand needed to justify your vehicle and what exists in the real world. I advocate going to Mars with an RLV and LEO refueling to avoid throwing away billions of dollars of launch vehicle hardware on each flight, that being the only way we're going to get a long-term program. It's a two-year round trip to Mars. If you can only make one trip every two years, reusability is not a big advantage. You might as well keep those billions of dollars of hardware on Mars and use them for habitat space. Unfortunately, we can't get low recuring costs by skimping on development cost. We did that with the Shuttle "Skimped on development cost"? I thought Shuttle development cost many billions of dollars. Am I mistaken? Scaled Composites skimped more than that on Spaceship One, didn't they? Does that mean Spaceship One has higher recurring costs than the Shuttle? and look where it got us. That's the REAL lesson of the Shuttle. An RLV of reasonable size (~20,000 lb. payload, or more, to LEO) will cost billions to develop. I am pesimistic that the private sector can do that on it's own, but would be delighted to be proven wrong. Why should it? 20,000 pounds is not a reasonable payload size. Not only are you telling the Wright Brothers they should be building trans-Pacific airplanes, you're insisting they start out with something big enough to carry an entire DC-3 as cargo. The organizations that have failed so miserably in the past should not get another chance, You mean like the companies that worked on Shuttle, NASP, X-33, X-34, and X-37? No, the NASA organizations that ran those programs. I thought NASP was run primarily by DoD? Okay, so how many chances do the companies get? And what motive do they have to succeed, when the only consequence of failure is the chance to bid on the next iteration? |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Moon and Mars expeditions vs. RLV development
Edward Wright wrote: Dick Morris wrote in message ... "First Generation RLV" is NASA's term for the Shuttle, and Boeing is quite happy to go along with whatever NASA wants. Boeing will also build whatever NASA wants, and if they want to build a fully-reusable launcher, Boeing will go all out to get the job. Boeing went all out to get X-37, too. Then what happened? When the cost of the project grew, Boeing threatened to walk away unless NASA kicked in more money. If Boeing can't complete its demonstrator on time and within budget, what makes you think a fully reusable launcher that's hundreds of times larger would be a piece of cake? As I have said many times, developing launch vehicles (or airliners) is among the hardest jobs in engineering. It is you who seem to think that it's a piece of cake, so any start-up company can do it for a few tens of millions of dollars. I have been acutely aware of the fundamental economic problems for 30 years. If you understood the problem, you wouldn't advocate building another Shuttle -- ballistic VTOL or not. No technical fix that can overcome the fact that there isn't enough demand to justify that kind of vehicle. You can't make 1 plus 1 equal 4, no matter what technology you come up with. I have said explicitly, many, many times that there isn't enough demand to justify the private development of a true RLV. Hence my belief that government funding of some sort will be required. If you knew anything about the problem you would know that new transportation systems must create their own market. We don't build bridges based on the number of people who swim the river at a particular point. Meanwhile, Scaled Composites is testing a true RLV right now. I know you want to think it's not "true," but it's true whether you think so or not. Scaled Composites is testing a true, rocket-powered airplane. Then why is AST evaluating their launch license application? AST doesn't license airplanes, they license launch vehicles. I don't know and I don't care. You'll have to ask them. I wish them luck: Getting to LEO, and back, will be about 100 times more difficult than what they have accomplished thus far. So? Are you making some Kennedy-esque point, that we ought to do this just because it's hard? Do you actually read anything I write? I have been saying for years that doing things just "because they are hard" is DUMB!!! It's one of the main reasons we still don't have a practical launch vehicle after 40 years of spaceflight. See "NASP" and "X-33". Not even a slight fever. ;-) I am strongly in favor of whatever works, and I'll take a good idea wherever I can get it. Are you the same Dick Morris who said his idea was "the only way"? I have said that an RLV (and an LEO propellant depot) is the only way we are going to get a long-term program of manned lunar and planetary exploration going. The expendable HLLV paradigm manifestly does not work! After 30 years of trying to re-create the Apollo program, with zero success, I should think that everybody would have gotten the point by now. The PC market was addressed originally by people working out of their garages. Hobbyists had already built their own computers. It was relatively easy to start small in the microcomputer market, but the price of admission to LEO markets is 8 km/sec. Your fever seems to have progressed to the next stage -- "LEO on the brain." :-) If you know of a way to get to the Moon or Mars without getting to orbital velocity I'd like to see it. You've got suborbital on the brain. If getting to LEO is so hard and the rewards are so small, doesn't that suggest you may have picked the wrong destination? You sound like a guy in 1904 telling Orville and Wilber they're wasting their time because the only "true airplanes" are those with trans-Pacific range. Get a life. Bigger, more expensive, and more elaborate works in a mature market like commercial aviation, but we obviously are not there yet with space. Smaller and simpler than the Shuttle, with full reusability and much higher reliability is the direction we should go right now, as far as commercial markets are concerned. Simpler and smaller than the Shuttle surely describes Spaceship One, doesn't it? So, what's your hang up there, again? You're hung up on SS1. If all you ever want to do is work on glorified carnival rides, or race rocket-powered airplanes, that's your priviledge. If so, you have missed the entire point. I don't advocate hugely expensive vehicles. Yes, you contradict yourself in the very next paragraph -- "will cost billions to develop." "Hugely" expensive means "much more than" expensive. Developing an RLV, of any significant size, will be expensive. Deal with it. My entire approach is to get costs DOWN so we can afford to do more in space. One reason I advocate VTOL is because ballistic designs are much cheaper to develop than winged designs. Who do you work for again? Wings typically account for about 20% of the weight (and therefore cost) of a vehicle. A 20% cost saving won't begin to close the gap between the demand needed to justify your vehicle and what exists in the real world. If you had any engineering experience you would know that development cost is not simply proportional to weight. I advocate going to Mars with an RLV and LEO refueling to avoid throwing away billions of dollars of launch vehicle hardware on each flight, that being the only way we're going to get a long-term program. It's a two-year round trip to Mars. If you can only make one trip every two years, reusability is not a big advantage. You might as well keep those billions of dollars of hardware on Mars and use them for habitat space. You have an amazing ability to miss the point. Expendable HLLV's are reduced to scrap metal in minutes, not years. Unfortunately, we can't get low recuring costs by skimping on development cost. We did that with the Shuttle "Skimped on development cost"? I thought Shuttle development cost many billions of dollars. Am I mistaken? It would have cost twice as much had it been fully-reusable. Scaled Composites skimped more than that on Spaceship One, didn't they? Does that mean Spaceship One has higher recurring costs than the Shuttle? Get a life. and look where it got us. That's the REAL lesson of the Shuttle. An RLV of reasonable size (~20,000 lb. payload, or more, to LEO) will cost billions to develop. I am pesimistic that the private sector can do that on it's own, but would be delighted to be proven wrong. Why should it? 20,000 pounds is not a reasonable payload size. Not only are you telling the Wright Brothers they should be building trans-Pacific airplanes, you're insisting they start out with something big enough to carry an entire DC-3 as cargo. If you want something smaller go right ahead. Just don't tell your investors that it can all be done for a few tens of millions, tops. Investors hate being lied to. ------ I thought for a moment we had a rational discussion going, for once. My mistake. All you want to do is twist everything I say in order to score debating points. So, my last word to you is... PLONK |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Moon and Mars expeditions vs. RLV development
Dick Morris wrote in message ...
As I have said many times, developing launch vehicles (or airliners) is among the hardest jobs in engineering. It is you who seem to think that it's a piece of cake, so any start-up company can do it for a few tens of millions of dollars. Okay, if building X-37 was too hard, what makes you think a big orbital RLV won't be? I have said explicitly, many, many times that there isn't enough demand to justify the private development of a true RLV. Repeating something many, many times doesn't make it true. Scaled Composites is testing a true, rocket-powered airplane. Then why is AST evaluating their launch license application? AST doesn't license airplanes, they license launch vehicles. I don't know and I don't care. You'll have to ask them. Why? I have no problem with AST's definition. Do you actually read anything I write? I have been saying for years that doing things just "because they are hard" is DUMB!!! It's one of the main reasons we still don't have a practical launch vehicle after 40 years of spaceflight. See "NASP" and "X-33". And your proposed RLV is designed to perform the same mission. Getting 20,000 pounds to orbit hasn't become any easier. I have said that an RLV (and an LEO propellant depot) is the only way we are going to get a long-term program of manned lunar and planetary exploration going. The expendable HLLV paradigm manifestly does not work! After 30 years of trying to re-create the Apollo program, with zero success, I should think that everybody would have gotten the point by now. I never claimed that trying to recreate the Apollo program would work. That doesn't prove a huge uneconomical RLV will work, however. It's possible for more than one thing not to work, Dick. If you know of a way to get to the Moon or Mars without getting to orbital velocity I'd like to see it. You've got suborbital on the brain. It isn't necessary to get to orbital velocity in a single step. The first airplanes weren't built to haul 20,000 pounds to Europe. An expensive new vehicle to support a mad rush to Mars may promise instant gratification, but it won't change anything in the long run. A ticket will still cost more than your life savings, and even if the government subsidizes it as you want, there will be a long line of people ahead of you. NASA gets about 100 applications for every spot in the astronaut program. If you want to get to the Moon or Mars, we've got to learn to do things cheaper first. Get a life. Clever, Dick. Haven't heard that one since high school. "Hugely" expensive means "much more than" expensive. Developing an RLV, of any significant size, will be expensive. Deal with it. In this context, "expensive" means $5-20 million. If you insist on what you call "significant size," then it will be hugely expensive. If you had any engineering experience you would know that development cost is not simply proportional to weight. Funny. Boeing's cost models are based on weight. It's a two-year round trip to Mars. If you can only make one trip every two years, reusability is not a big advantage. You might as well keep those billions of dollars of hardware on Mars and use them for habitat space. You have an amazing ability to miss the point. Expendable HLLV's are reduced to scrap metal in minutes, not years. So? NASA can buy a lot of scrap metal for what Boeing would want to build a heavy-lift RLV. Unfortunately, we can't get low recuring costs by skimping on development cost. We did that with the Shuttle "Skimped on development cost"? I thought Shuttle development cost many billions of dollars. Am I mistaken? It would have cost twice as much had it been fully-reusable. Shrug. I suppose you could figure a way to make it cost ten times as much. So? A billion dollars may be a small unit to the Federal government, but no one else would call it skimpy. If you want something smaller go right ahead. Just don't tell your investors that it can all be done for a few tens of millions, tops. Investors hate being lied to. Spaceship One constitutes an existance proof that it can be done for a few tens of millions. If you want to cover your eyes, okay, but it can be done, has been done, and will be done. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NASA to Start From Scratch in New [Moon/Mars Exploration] Effort | Tom Abbott | Policy | 14 | January 19th 04 12:12 AM |
NEWS: The allure of an outpost on the Moon | Kent Betts | Space Shuttle | 2 | January 15th 04 12:56 AM |
Moon key to space future? | James White | Policy | 90 | January 6th 04 04:29 PM |
We choose to go to the Moon? | Brian Gaff | Space Shuttle | 49 | December 10th 03 10:14 AM |