|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
NASA's 1$ billion windfall
As far as delivering nothing, you should probably look into that [false]
statement a little bit before throwing it out. True the profit margins are low - so why are they in the business if it is not viable. Why have innovative companys fallen by the wayside (Roton, Beal, Kistler etc) when all Boeing can deliver in it 'new' rocket launcher, the Delta 4, is a rehash of old technology in a new skin. Apart from the avionics tell me one thing on the Delta4 that was not in 70's era's launchers. While the shuttle failed as a launcher I feel that the idea was right. Produce something different to push the boundaries. The NACA succeeded where NASA post Apollo failed. The NACA was a focused research organization that produced stunning advances in aeronautics and probably contributed more with less budget that NASA ever has. Perhaps NASA can remember those roots and remember a bit of the NACA ethic. I also feel that the rot started with the selection of LOR as the method of reaching the moon. Great for a race however the lasting legacy of that race is nothing at all - no facilites in space to launch further missions. I think after Apollo 17 there was a collective halt and everyone thought "well what do we do now". |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
NASA's 1$ billion windfall
"Earl Colby Pottinger" wrote in message
"Jon Berndt" : "Steve" wrote in message I also share your skepticism. I see this initiative as money for Boeing and LockMart to give to their shareholders while they make noises about producing hardware and then deliver nothing. Remember the X-33. You must be joking. The profit margin on this kind of work is typically very, very low. As far as delivering nothing, you should probably look into that [false] statement a little bit before throwing it out. Really, then name one useful thing learnt from the non-building of the X-33. As far what was learned in developing X-33 others have already pointed out to you several things. Do a google search on "AIAA X-33" and you'll find a bunch of papers written on various topics surrounding the project. The main point I was making was that I'd be very surprised if the shareholders for Lockheed saw anything at all from the X-33 project. And it is non-building when you consider that there is not even an assembled airframe. Earl Colby Pottinger Look he http://aiaa.pr.erau.edu/past/Spring99/99_01.html (not the best picture). Obviously it was not *finished*, but the frame was *assembled*. The last I heard, though, it *was* being disassembled. Jon |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
NASA's 1$ billion windfall
"Steve" wrote in message
Why have innovative companys fallen by the wayside (Roton, Beal, Kistler etc) when all Boeing can deliver in it 'new' rocket launcher, the Delta 4, is a rehash of old technology in a new skin. Apart from the avionics tell me one thing on the Delta4 that was not in 70's era's launchers. The common core? The engines? http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/...opul/RS68.html Manufacturing processes? Jon |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
NASA's 1$ billion windfall
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
NASA's 1$ billion windfall
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
NASA's 1$ billion windfall
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/...opul/RS68.html
Yes the RS68 is a new engine however H2/02 was perfected in the late 50s early 60s. Yes it is more powerful and probably easier to make than a J2 or a RL10 however it is not original. None of the Delta4 is even recoverable. I also read that there was research program to try to get the foam insulation to be blue so it would fit the corporate image - what the!!!!!!!!!!!!! The point I am trying to make is that aside from the shuttle all current lanchers are totally expendable aluminium cylinders with a rocket motor at the bottom. The fuel combinations and the method of fuel delivery were largely perfected during the 60s and 70s. The latest one, the Falcon, uses pintle injectors like in the lunar lander. Yes there is merit in using tried and true technology. In the space of 30 years aeronautics went from wooden biplanes to jet powered metal monoplanes capable of 500knots. We did not then think then that the ME262 was too hard and complex to build so we had better go back to Fokker DR7s. Apollo last flew in the 70s, it is now 2004 and all we can think of doing is re-creating this. Sure we might have better materials and manufacturing proceses however no-one is suggesting the replacement for the current fighter generation should be an all composite ME262. Why was the X-15 the last of the X-Planes - where has the innovation gone. The last X series, while teaching us some lessons, where a dismal failure. We could not even summon up the courage to continue the X-34 even when there were no fundamental problems with it. Since when has the deaths of astronauts stopped a progam. Many fine pilots were lost in the X-series of planes yet the incredibly brave pilots that flew them still got in the cockpit the next day and pushed the envelope a bit harder so that we could learn a bit more. What does sending aluminium tubes into orbit with a 70s capsule on top teach us. Why do accountants tell us what we should launch and why. We already know how to do it. Is this the way we honour those pilots and astronauts - going back to the safe way. NASA is above all a research organization. It should be sponsoring pushing the envelope and taking risks. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
NASA's 1$ billion windfall
"Steve" wrote in message
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/...opul/RS68.html Yes the RS68 is a new engine however H2/02 was perfected in the late 50s early 60s. Yes it is more powerful and probably easier to make than a J2 or a RL10 however it is not original. I answered your question from before. You asserted that "Apart from the avionics tell me one thing on the Delta4 that was not in 70's era's launchers." None of the Delta4 is even recoverable. Why should it be? Haven't we learned that sometimes it is more expensive to recover? The point I am trying to make is that aside from the shuttle all current lanchers are totally expendable aluminium cylinders with a rocket motor at the bottom. The fuel combinations and the method of fuel delivery were largely perfected during the 60s and 70s. The latest one, the Falcon, uses pintle injectors like in the lunar lander. Yes there is merit in using tried and true technology. So ... what is your point? Apollo last flew in the 70s, it is now 2004 and all we can think of doing is re-creating this. Sure we might have better materials and manufacturing proceses however no-one is suggesting the replacement for the current fighter generation should be an all composite ME262. Research and Development is one thing. A targeted plan of action aimed at a goal is another. Exploration is not R&D. For exploration we'd darn well better use a dependable, tried and true, and economical approach. For exploration, R&D will surely be involved at some point, but the use of existing technology where appropriate ought to aid in keeping costs low. Form follows function - not the other way around. We don't need to go creating some "advanced" technology just because we can. We've seen that kill projects before (X-33, etc.) The use of a capsule and perhaps an Apollo CSM type of approach might be the best approach for the lunar goal. If that turns out to be true, why try something else just because some equate using something tried and true with something useless or "retro" today? Why was the X-15 the last of the X-Planes - where has the innovation gone. The last X series, while teaching us some lessons, where a dismal failure. We could not even summon up the courage to continue the X-34 even when there were no fundamental problems with it. Duplication of efforts. Since when has the deaths of astronauts stopped a progam. Many fine pilots were lost in the X-series of planes yet the incredibly brave pilots that flew them still got in the cockpit the next day and pushed the envelope a bit harder so that we could learn a bit more. What does sending aluminium tubes into orbit with a 70s capsule on top teach us. Why do accountants tell us what we should launch and why. We already know how to do it. Is this the way we honour those pilots and astronauts - going back to the safe way. NASA is above all a research organization. It should be sponsoring pushing the envelope and taking risks. Taking calculated and necessary risks, yes. But if risks can be mitigated even more, isn't that a good thing? Your above paragraph seems absurd to me. The idea is for safe and dependable transportation to and from, and through, space. It's as if you are saying that if we are not taking risks by using advanced, envelope-pushing technology, that we are sissies. Again, form follows function. Take a sensible approach, and create and use tools that are appropriate for the task at hand. That is the road into the future. Now, we do need to develop more powerful and reliable propulsion and power systems for an earth/mars mission, I think. That's Prometheus. But for the near-term goals, we don't need anything fancy. Indeed that approach might kill the vision outright. Jon |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
NASA's 1$ billion windfall
Scott Lowther :
Earl Colby Pottinger wrote: Really, then name one useful thing learnt from the non-building of the X-33. Multi-lobe composite pressure vessels are hard to make. Very hard to make. Sorry that was already known before the X-33 was built. Infact if you read the messages published just after the X-33 design was selected you would see that lots of people already knew that it was a hard (bad) design and suggested alumium tanks atleast to do test flights. Cryopumping in composite structures is a serious problem. Odd, it was not a problem in non-NASA designs. ROTON did not have the problem. The DC-X did not have the problem. Infact, anyone in North America except for NASA would have built a test tank that matched the final design (NASA changed the design between the final version and thier test version) or would have talked to or hired Scaled Composites to avoid problems like that. The way X-33 was done was just a waste of money. Earl Colby Pottinger -- I make public email sent to me! Hydrogen Peroxide Rockets, OpenBeos, SerialTransfer 3.0, RAMDISK, BoatBuilding, DIY TabletPC. What happened to the time? http://webhome.idirect.com/~earlcp |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
NASA's 1$ billion windfall
Earl Colby Pottinger wrote:
Multi-lobe composite pressure vessels are hard to make. Very hard to make. Sorry that was already known before the X-33 was built. Infact if you read the messages published just after the X-33 design was selected you would see that lots of people already knew that it was a hard (bad) design and suggested alumium tanks atleast to do test flights. They *knew*, or theu *suspected*? There's a difference. Cryopumping in composite structures is a serious problem. Odd, it was not a problem in non-NASA designs. ROTON did not have the problem. ROTON had large cryogen hydrogen or lox tansk actually tested out? I was unaware of that. The DC-X did not have the problem. Infact, anyone in North America except for NASA would have built a test tank that matched the final design Ah. Anyone? Like maybe Lockheed? -- Scott Lowther, Engineer Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
NASA's 1$ billion windfall
"Steve" wrote
.... The point I am trying to make is that aside from the shuttle all current lanchers are totally expendable aluminium cylinders with a rocket motor at the bottom. The fuel combinations and the method of fuel delivery were largely perfected during the 60s and 70s. Why do cars even after 100 years of development worlwide, thousands of trillions of dollars spent, many wars fought, why do they still run on oil? And why do they run on 4 wheels? As you can check, back in the old 1920's they already used this tech... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NASA's Culture Of Denial | Rand Simberg | Space Science Misc | 0 | August 26th 03 10:05 PM |