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".

"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

"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

(Steve) writes:

I also feel that the rot started with the selection of LOR as the
method of reaching the moon.

I've heard it said by some old-timers that the rot started with the
obsolescence of the slide rule. Computers make it easy to get in over
your head. (And at the grunt level of engineering, they tend to keep
you too busy to think well about your non-computer problems.) Of
course, they were just being facetious, to make points about the
effect of the use computers on engineering judgement, etc.; the
advantages of computers is obvious to even old-timers, no doubt.

(Steve) writes:

I also feel that the rot started with the selection of LOR as the
method of reaching the moon.

I think it started either when they changed "in orbit" to "on orbit"
or when they decided to have more than one center.

But seriously, I get embarassed for them almost every time I see a
NASA activity on TV, as they frequently have some kind of audio
difficulty. (Except that I don't believe that an audio difficulty
caused the omission of "a" from Neil Armstrong's first words on the
Moon, as I've read he tells the story.) Or they have people answering
questions who give very poor answers, when they manage to remember the
questions at all. It makes their PR somewhat counter-productive.
NASA-TV (though not all shows) is often too painful to watch, and
often makes the cable-access channel look good. I know NASA does some
great things, but they really should give more attention to the PR
thing.

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.

"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

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

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

"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...