A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Science Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Space Program Needs The Right Stuff



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old December 18th 03, 11:09 PM
Gregory G Rose
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Space Program Needs The Right Stuff

In article ,
Rand Simberg wrote:
No mas.


Que?
--
Greg Rose
232B EC8F 44C6 C853 D68F E107 E6BF CD2F 1081 A37C
Qualcomm Australia: http://www.qualcomm.com.au

Ads
  #13  
Old December 19th 03, 12:27 AM
Jim Davis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Space Program Needs The Right Stuff

Jim Kingdon wrote:

Now, I don't happen to know just where the X-1 and X-15 score on
those metrics. Just to pick one I could quickly find: 199
missions over 10 years (
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...15/chrono.html )
isn't much by aircraft standards, but it is still more than just
about any launcher (with the possible exception of a few Russian
models).


No, sorry. Various Atlas models flew 342 times during the same period
that the X-15 was flying. Various Thor/Delta models flew 318 times.

Jim Davis

  #15  
Old December 20th 03, 01:39 AM
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Space Program Needs The Right Stuff

(Tom Merkle) wrote:

(Derek Lyons) wrote in message ...
h (Rand Simberg) wrote:
Fox: "In avoiding risk, we almost ensure failure." In some ways,
that's the most important message.

And of course, the Langley vs Wright theme (analogy with government
versus private theme) prevailed throughout.


Hyman Rickover may debate you on that. The conspicuous *lack* of
failure in Naval Reactors compared with the well documented
failures[1] of commercial reactors provides an interesting counterpart
to your themes.


frickin' nukes. Always worshipping at the altar of Hyman G.


First off, I wasn't a nuke, I was a coner. Specifically I was a
strategic weaponeer. (And believe me, there's even less love lost
between weaponeers and nukes than between the sonar girls and the evap
operator. If you ever draw SSBN duty, you'll be in for a surprise.
Or probably not in today's kinder/gentler Navy.) Also, I was
enlisted, not O-ganger, and things look different down on the
deckplates.

The point wasn't really a government vs. private thing, it's a focused,
incremental effort thing vs. a 'perfect end product on the first try'
thing. Both government and private programs are easily capable of
selling out this way.


However, Naval Reactors was *both*. Focused incremental development
of components, then a leap to full scale testing with the MKI/STR/S1W,
then a leap to a 'perfect on the first try' MKII/S2W. (Was the MKI
the SIR or the STR? I could fetch the book, but it does not really
matter.) There was nothing incremental about Rickover's program, it
more resembled the Saturn V [1] than the Wright Flyer.

[1] Test and verify components, build and operate a full scale
prototype, commit humans to ride the third SV, the second nuclear
power plant.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

  #17  
Old December 20th 03, 01:43 AM
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Space Program Needs The Right Stuff

Jim Kingdon wrote:
For instance; SS1's current demonstrated performance barely matches
the X-1 (nearly fifty years ago), and in it's final form will barely
match the X-15 (over forty years ago). Simple bald facts, but
embarrassing to the 'four legs/two legs' mindset.


Ah, but much of this debate is about changing the figures of merit
away from performance and towards measures such as cost per flight,
reliability (only demonstrable with large numbers of flights),
turnaround time between flights, size of ground crew, etc.


These are important metrics, I agree. But let's not allow that to
change focus from the basic facts; without performance those other
metrics are meaningless as there won't be a company flying them.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

  #19  
Old December 20th 03, 03:08 AM
Lou Adornato
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Space Program Needs The Right Stuff

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
Jim Kingdon wrote:


[1]For instance; SS1's current demonstrated performance barely matches
the X-1 (nearly fifty years ago), and in it's final form will barely
match the X-15 (over forty years ago). Simple bald facts, but
embarrassing to the 'four legs/two legs' mindset.


You're ignoring the crucial fact that NASA walked away from this technology
and refused to even reconsider it because it would make subsequent decisions
look bad. This sort of situation doesn't exist in a competitive market -
any company that refuses to face reality about failing projects will
eventually go out of business. Can you imagine any comercial entity flying
an aircraft that failed to meet it's design criteria as miserably as the
shuttle has?

It's not all that strange that it took a bunch of bootstrap organizations 40
years to catch up to the state-of-the-art, with NASA effectively blocking
all commercial incentive to do so and thereby driving away any potential
investors.

  #20  
Old December 20th 03, 10:51 PM
Derek Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Space Program Needs The Right Stuff

h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 17:40:50 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
(Derek Lyons) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Mostly because they were so heavily regulated, they weren't really
commercial, and no innovation was allowed. That was the cost of the
Price-Anderson act.


Mostly because the Price-Anderson act lead to the political failure of
the industry, and has absolutely zero bearing on the operator and
designer failures I noted.


It was the direct cause. Once the industry gave up its autonomy in
exchange for freedom from liability, there was no room for innovative
techiques.


Right. And innovation would have prevented Fermi 2 how? (Since that
Fermi 2 was a fabrication error.) How would innovation have prevented
Browns Ferry? (Since Browns Ferry was a management and common sense
failure.) How would innovation have prevented TMI? (Since TMI was a
managment and operational error.) If Price-Anderson prevented
innovation, why is virtually every reactor in the country built to
different designs? Why is there a constant increase in the size of
the plants?

These are serious questions BTW.

We've seen the same thing in the aircraft industry, in
which the FAA tells everyone how to design and operate aircraft.


Even before the FAA, we saw airplanes lost to operator, maintenance,
design, and construction problems. After the FAA, we see airplanes
lost to the same cause. The FAA has changed what exactly?

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
No Red Space Menace Rand Simberg Space Science Misc 11 October 18th 03 06:30 AM
Is a Space Elevator more risky than the shuttle? Henry J. Cobb Space Science Misc 18 October 4th 03 02:06 AM
The Non-Innovator's Dilemma Rand Simberg Space Science Misc 76 September 27th 03 03:09 AM
Asteroid first, Moon, Mars Later Al Jackson Space Science Misc 0 September 3rd 03 03:40 PM
Is space over? Tony Rusi Space Science Misc 0 July 6th 03 12:40 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.