A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

Heard too much and need to vent.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old July 24th 03, 01:05 AM
Alan Anderson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Heard too much and need to vent.

Jim Davis wrote:

Cardman wrote:


Maybe, because I am close to the truth, where some people just
don't want to hear it.


I predict that Rand's opinion of John Ordover is going to improve.
:-)


I'm trying very very hard to ignore the nagging suspicion that Cardman is
an intentional creation of Mr. Ordover. He does seem designed to provide
an extreme example of a viewpoint where technology and economics are
sufficient to support 100-ton launches by the handful.
  #22  
Old July 24th 03, 01:13 AM
Rand Simberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Heard too much and need to vent.

On 23 Jul 2003 23:20:11 GMT, in a place far, far away, Jim Davis
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

Cardman wrote:

And yet no one has yet provided any facts to prove my ideas
wrong. All these very experienced people and I wonder why that
is, where instead we get snide comments.

Maybe, because I am close to the truth, where some people just
don't want to hear it.


I predict that Rand's opinion of John Ordover is going to improve.


No, they're different categories.

Ordover is a troll. This guy is just clueless. At least so far...

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:
  #23  
Old July 24th 03, 01:18 AM
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Heard too much and need to vent.


"Cardman" wrote in message
...

Shuttle-C was designed to move cargo about within orbit, where my
method was to do this though an always in orbit space tug instead.


No, Shuttle-C was a launch vehicle in its various incarnations. Some
returned the SSMEs, some din't.



Hell you could even use the Shuttle as this space tug provided that
they did a few adjustments. The first is to keep it up there, which
should not be that hard. Then of course it needs cargo canister
handling capability, which it mostly already has.


It would be extremely hard. The Shuttle is not designed for long stays in
orbit. It's overly massive. It has wings that are useless in orbit, etc.


And so with refueling and maintaining the Shuttle always in orbit,
then you eliminate the cost of making the space tug. And in emergency
situations, then yes the Shuttle can re-enter and land if it cannot go
elsewhere.


Do you have a concept of how much fuel would be required to turn the shuttle
into an useful orbital tug? Far more than it can hold.

Sounds like a better use of the Shuttle to me, but I have no idea as
to its long term in space limits. I presume that it tends to run out
of fuel, which is a problem that I would well solve. And sure anything
else it needs can be stored on the ISS.

Shuttle-C has
been studied at length by NASA. The problem is the high cost per
launch and the flight rate,


Rubbish.

The Shuttle is a highly technical machine that needs to be virtually
rebuilt after every launch.


Which leads to the low launch rate which leads to high costs.


All I need are cheap cargo containing strap on tubes, which are
ideally segmented.

Even the less clever people around can see the cost savings involved
with removing a highly technical machine and just launching dumb cargo
cannisters.


The less clever people are missing the fact that it's still expensive.


  #25  
Old July 24th 03, 02:15 AM
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Heard too much and need to vent.


"Cardman" wrote in message
...

The reason that nobody has built a Shuttle-C to date


Not that this is quite the design I imagine, when my idea is more of a
simple and less complex design.


From your previous comments, I'm not sure I believe you have an idea of how
complex or simple Shuttle-C was meant to be.

Remember, the launch vehicle is only part of the problem. You still have
the entire infrastructure of LC-39 that has to be paid for.

And if you don't recover the SSMEs, that's a chunk of change right there.
If you do want to return them, not you've re-added complexity.


Do you have someone who is going to pay to launch something
else that sized?


Congress could well do so with a Moon Base if NASA could show easy
slot together mass produced sections and a heavy launcher to get the
stuff out there.


There are no voters on the Moon. It's really that simple. NASA exists
primarily as a jobs program. (At least on the space side. I'd argue the A
has more present value on a dollar for dollar basis.)



No doubt it would cost less than the ISS as well. All the support
craft is a different question though, when NASA cannot build things
cheap these days.

Once you have the launch capacity, then it only takes imagination to
fill it. You go ask some project manager what they would put in such a
launch and they would bound to have great ideas.


No, it takes MONEY to fill it. No one's coming up with the bucks.

Heck, one way to make the shuttle cheaper is to launch it MORE often, not
less. Look up the difference between fixed and marginal costs.

(look at the current NASA budget and the "savings" of launching no more
shuttle flights this year as one reference.)


Cardman.



  #26  
Old July 24th 03, 02:24 AM
Cardman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Heard too much and need to vent.

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 23:21:29 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 00:08:37 +0100, in a place far, far away, Cardman
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

NASA is fully welcome to work out all the exact details and costs
involved in this plan. I have said what I came hear to say and no one
has yet given me a good reason why it should not be done.


Because it would be various combinations of being physically
impossible and economically ridiculous. No detailed analysis is
required to know this, if one understands basic physics,


I know basic physics, where nothing I have said charges this.

And if NASA knows basic physics, then why did it not put the ISS into
a much more useful orbit?

the nature of the shuttle systems,


So it cannot be maintained in orbit then? That to me sounds like the
usual "we simply do not want to do it" rubbish.

Well it seems to spend many days up there perfectly fine, where I can
only see that refueling and recharging would keep it running longer.

Sure there would be long term problems, but either you could then
scrap the Shuttles one by one in favour of something new, or you could
use this huge launch capacity to build a Shuttle servicing station.

Whatever NASA plans to do after the Shuttle won't be cheap, where this
could be the cheapest of the available options.

and the basis of space systems costs.


I estimate lower launch costs than with the Shuttle, where no one has
even began to prove that wrong.

And certainly some of my ideas are not cheap, but NASA has been
thinking along this line itself a fair amount. As how do they plan to
go to the moon? Fairy dust?

We do. You clearly don't, by your own admission.


You are also not proving me wrong, where either your ego is too large
or you cannot.

So name one single item on the Shuttle that would soon expire and
could not be replaced in orbit? Go on, I dare you. ;-]

Cardman.
  #27  
Old July 24th 03, 03:06 AM
Cardman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Heard too much and need to vent.

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 01:15:30 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:

"Cardman" wrote in message
.. .

The reason that nobody has built a Shuttle-C to date


Not that this is quite the design I imagine, when my idea is more of a
simple and less complex design.


From your previous comments, I'm not sure I believe you have an idea of how
complex or simple Shuttle-C was meant to be.


Well it is such an old idea, where after all this is just a cargo
version of the shuttle.

Remember, the launch vehicle is only part of the problem. You still have
the entire infrastructure of LC-39 that has to be paid for.


Certainly, but following the complex Shuttle, I am sure that support
can be reduced for a simpler system.

And if you don't recover the SSMEs, that's a chunk of change right there.


Not that I was thinking of SSMEs, when even NASA knows that these are
due replacement. Or was the last time I checked.

Some new rocket engines right below the main fuel tank was my idea,
where with some good engineering the engines can be separated in orbit
and returned to Earth if desired.

If you do want to return them, not you've re-added complexity.


That is the whole problem with the Shuttle, when 80% of the launch
mass is taken up with the launching hardware of the Shuttle.

Congress could well do so with a Moon Base if NASA could show easy
slot together mass produced sections and a heavy launcher to get the
stuff out there.


There are no voters on the Moon. It's really that simple.


Have they ever tried getting out on the streets and asking people?

I don't think that space exploration should really be a voting matter,
when people will always put things before exploration, where they soon
forget that their own country was found and invaded due to this word.

NASA exists primarily as a jobs program.


That sounds like a good reason to have no more NASA.

Just break the space probe section into a separate company to keep
that useful area running, then get rid of all the Shuttle and the ISS
(and of course NASA), when obviously they will never be doing anything
really useful with them.

The primary area that the ISS does do, science, has been heavily
criticized by scientists as a waste of money. Oh that was good...

So the ISS is not good at what it does, the ISS was built for this
purpose, where the Shuttle was built to build the ISS. In other words
a waste of money from start to finish.

Now imagine if the ISS had been made as a Moon Base instead, when if
it did nothing at all, then at least they could say "Hey, we are
exploring the Moon here", where more likely they actually would be.

(At least on the space side. I'd argue the A
has more present value on a dollar for dollar basis.)


The "A"?

Once you have the launch capacity, then it only takes imagination to
fill it. You go ask some project manager what they would put in such a
launch and they would bound to have great ideas.


No, it takes MONEY to fill it. No one's coming up with the bucks.


Well as I said at minimum it would service the ISS for a very long
time, where you could use extra capacity for fuel.

And well one day in a few years time NASA may put the Moon Base idea
before congress, where then we will see if you have a paying customer.

Congress usually like space exploration, where they forced NASA to do
the Pluto mission, where they would also like NASA to account for what
they have done to promote space exploration.

So congress is usually pro-space exploration, where NASA gets congress
quite annoyed at what it does.

Heck, one way to make the shuttle cheaper is to launch it MORE often, not
less. Look up the difference between fixed and marginal costs.


Certainly, where I can only see that getting rid of the Shuttle and
using a much less complex rocket, would help reduce some of those
fixed costs.

(look at the current NASA budget and the "savings" of launching no more
shuttle flights this year as one reference.)


So as they have a backlog of ISS components to launch, then why not
increase the launch rate and save money? ;-]

Cardman.
  #28  
Old July 24th 03, 03:07 AM
Alan Anderson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Heard too much and need to vent.

Cardman wrote:

So name one single item on the Shuttle that would soon expire and
could not be replaced in orbit? Go on, I dare you. ;-]


Tires.
  #29  
Old July 24th 03, 03:10 AM
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Heard too much and need to vent.


"Cardman" wrote in message
...

Because it would be various combinations of being physically
impossible and economically ridiculous. No detailed analysis is
required to know this, if one understands basic physics,


I know basic physics, where nothing I have said charges this.

And if NASA knows basic physics, then why did it not put the ISS into
a much more useful orbit?


Politics. Clinton turned it into a Foreign policy program with the
Russians. They can only effectively launch to that inclination. So we
changed it.


and the basis of space systems costs.


I estimate lower launch costs than with the Shuttle, where no one has
even began to prove that wrong.


People have given you several sources.

At the very least pick up the 3rd edition of Space Shuttle by Dennis Jenkin.

Flip to page 457 and start reading.

Page 459 shows estimated launch costs of $424 million. Not really any
cheaper than the Shuttle.


We do. You clearly don't, by your own admission.


You are also not proving me wrong, where either your ego is too large
or you cannot.

So name one single item on the Shuttle that would soon expire and
could not be replaced in orbit? Go on, I dare you. ;-]


Reactants for the Fuel cells currently can not be replaced on orbit.
Fuel for the OMS and the RCS currently can not be replenished on orbit.




Cardman.



  #30  
Old July 24th 03, 03:21 AM
Cardman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Heard too much and need to vent.

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 00:18:55 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:

"Cardman" wrote in message
.. .

Shuttle-C was designed to move cargo about within orbit, where my
method was to do this though an always in orbit space tug instead.


No, Shuttle-C was a launch vehicle in its various incarnations. Some
returned the SSMEs, some din't.


I see.

Hell you could even use the Shuttle as this space tug provided that
they did a few adjustments. The first is to keep it up there, which
should not be that hard. Then of course it needs cargo canister
handling capability, which it mostly already has.


It would be extremely hard. The Shuttle is not designed for long stays in
orbit.


Yes, but overlooking the tiny space debris, then cannot it be serviced
in orbit?

It's overly massive. It has wings that are useless in orbit, etc.


Sure it has a lot of mass, but all you need is extra energy to move
that mass, where launching 100 tons of cargo can certainly include
lots of fuel.

And I will presume that you can't cut the wings off... ;-]

And so with refueling and maintaining the Shuttle always in orbit,
then you eliminate the cost of making the space tug. And in emergency
situations, then yes the Shuttle can re-enter and land if it cannot go
elsewhere.


Do you have a concept of how much fuel would be required to turn the shuttle
into an useful orbital tug? Far more than it can hold.


I was considering that possibility, where the obvious solution is to
increase its fuel capacity. Turn the cargo bay into fuel storage, or
maybe by some external method.

Well it is all about linking in some extra pipe work to provide extra
fuel, where this should not be a major problem to solve.

The Shuttle is a highly technical machine that needs to be virtually
rebuilt after every launch.


Which leads to the low launch rate which leads to high costs.


Exactly, where a simple rocket system saves all that support work.

All I need are cheap cargo containing strap on tubes, which are
ideally segmented.

Even the less clever people around can see the cost savings involved
with removing a highly technical machine and just launching dumb cargo
cannisters.


The less clever people are missing the fact that it's still expensive.


Yes, but I can only feel that it is better than with now. As like it
or not the life of the Shuttle is coming to an end.

What heavy launch do you plan if not the Shuttle?

Cardman.
 




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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.