Establish demand

On Feb 28, 4:54 am, "Ian Parker" wrote:
BTW Hubble was an abominable socialist design. It was designed to be
repaired by highle expensive astronauts rather than by robots. No
scientist given the choice would have given it houseroom.

This is what I am saying - Bureaucracy - national virility - certainly
NOT science.

I am not arguing against the concept of a space telescope. Hubble has
done stirling work but it could have been a lot lot cheaper if
scientists had designed and launched it on a free enterprise basis.

- Ian Parker

The Hubble has done stirling work? I thought only stirling engines
could do stirling work. Well -- you learn something every day, don't
you?

-michael turner

If you are talking about demand for items like comm sats which are
completely commercial, there is no problem. In terms of scientific
space exploration somehow scientists will have to try to put their
point of view across. The scientific establishment has, correctly,
opposed Intelligent Design vociforously and there is a sign that it
has started to get its point of view across.

One very simple question :- LISA How do you talk to a President who
believes in Adam and Eve about Inflation and the first 3 minutes? 3
minutes is how long it takes to eat an apple - only it was not an
apple it resulted from a Latin pun - mallus and malus. There is no pun
in Hebrew. Questions like these tend to make one want to say I do not
want the likes of him making any sort of decision.

It is NOT true to say that there is no connection between manned and
scientific. The scentific program was raided to pay for the Shuttle
repairs.

I don't think the task as far as the general public is concerned is
completely hopeless. On the news there was a report on the new
colliding rings at CERN. A dig for LISA could have been put in as
well.

LISA has caught my imagination. Sure there are other scientific
experiments of great merit but this, with the possible exception of
dark matter, is the only one that can win a Nobel prize.

Asteroid defense - Yes this is an excellent topic/ However yet again I
do not believe astronauts have a role.


- Ian Parker

On Feb 28, 1:30 am, "Michael Turner" wrote:
On Feb 28, 12:08 am, "Totorkon" wrote:

What worries me about proposals to deliver water is that the public is
going to view proponents as having water on the brain.

Notwithstanding my lengthy, persistent defenses of such ideas, I have
to agree.

On the other
hand, an ice prospecting rover on the moon can probably find support.

I haven't seen anyone complain about the various water-prospecting-
related activities so far (at least, nobody who isn't also in the camp
of "it's all a waste of money".) At this point, it doesn't pose a
humans/robots issue, because it's scientifically important, AND a
potential gateway resource for expanded lunar/space presence.

The case for propellant by electrolysis and liquification may turn out
to be more difficult in practice than imagined, but it does fire the
imagination.

It's a relatively easy one. Anybody who's had junior high school
science classes knows that water is hydrogen and oxygen, and that the
combination is combustible and used to power rockets. Anybody can
testify before Congress and say "if there's water on the Moon, and we
can mine it, we'll be able to do a lot more on a budget that's about
on par with what American spend on potato chips."

In principle it is simple. In practice, there must be an energy
source, poor performing heat radiators, perhaps a three stage process
for H2 liquification and active refrigeration. Then there has to be
transportation and connection. I doubt that a practical system could
be set up on the moon for less than 50 tons.

Likewise, to boldly seek out new resources in the
asteroids and moons of mars might generate public support. The
persuit isn't a dead end, it is a beginning.

I think asteroid prospecting has a better chance if it's paired with
asteroid defense, which has an appeal all out of proportion to the
assessed risks (so far). There may be synergies. Currently, the best
designs for deflecting asteroids depend on ion engines. If there are
ISRU propellant scenarios, better designs might be possible. And that
leads in the direction of ISRU for other purposes.

Good point.

Actually, most people polled think NASA has a budget that is closer
the the expenditures for defense.

This is a tough one. When the meme of manned Mars missions costing
upwards of a trillion dollars got going in the press, there was very
little public skepticism about that number, and probably because most
people think NASA's budget is many times what it really is.

It's interesting how perceptions are created and how they form on
their own. In the building of the case for invading Iraq, the more
sober-sided intelligence analysts kept trying to keep it real, but the
pro-invasion hawks kept "sticking that baby in there" -- they
intercepted any documents going higher, and kept injecting their
highly questionable "1% likelihood" reports.

What the space program needs is some mole in the White House with a
reality agenda: to make sure that every presidential or vice-
presidential speech mentioning the space program would get a
comparison or simile that helped bring public perceptions of NASA's
budget back down to Earth. "Our Moon-Mars program, which will only
cost what Americans spend every year on video games [soft drinks /
potato chips / doughnuts / dieting aids that don't work] ...."

Stick that baby in there! Every time!

Man in space has much more of an allure in prospect, but people get
bored with it quickly. It is a slow news day when there is a story
about the ISS, the science is not compelling and does not have
commertial applications.

Sticking that baby in there one more time: various Citizens in Space
programs have been proposed, and this might be a good way to stave off
the onset of boredom. A fresh and unscripted face on every flight
might be good. I think sending kids would be best, though I can
imagine the objections. Teachers in Space had a following, until they
tried to send the first one up on Challenger.

That's the problem, one failure ends the program instead of being just
a setback.

While in the past, advocating cuts in the
manned program may have been a case of cutting ones nose to spite ones
face, I think the public is much more embracing of robot exploration
because it delivers the goods. Spirit and Opportunity cost less than
$1G, 1% of the ISS, but they are just as popular.

Yes, but would more Mars Rovers be greeted with the same enthusiasm?
You might get a Different-Landscape-Same-Movie reaction.

That is especially true for the moon but mars will have a more
dramatic range of landscapes, good for calenders. Finding microbial
life is always a possibility. More than a dozen rovers could be
landed for far less than the cost of a human mission and they can be
sent piecemeal.

[snip]

Lincoln said that "there is no distinction in adding story to story
upon the monuments of fame erected to the memory of others". Neil and
Buzz make for a good memory, but when it comes to affairs of the
wallet, building a new road in territory where none has gone before is
a better investment and worth the public's support.

You'll always have "bridge-to-nowhere" naysayers, no matter what.
Apollo did a fairly good job of making the journey the reward, but
mainly by retracing steps and going a little further each time. When
there wasn't much further to go, it started to die. Bridge-building
is civil engineering. Bridge-building in space gets less and less
interesting to the taxpayer the more it's oriented around logistics to
make all space access, exploration and exploitation cheaper. Say
"space" and a lot of people's eyes light up. Say "space logistics"
and brow-furrows appear, eyes glaze over. It's a hard sales job.
Maybe selling it gets easier if you hike and maintain the human
interest, and sending more different kinds of people, more often,
might be the way to appeal to the masses. If that works, you can
start saying "If you let us do *this*, al that human stuff you like to
see gets easier and cheaper to pull off. Not to mention that it makes
robotic missions easier and cheaper as well." I doubt there's a
strategy that's both cost-optimal and politically possible.

-michael turner

Humans may well be involved in the orbital assembly of telescopes and
robotic mission hardware, but the limited stay, life support
requirements and clumsiness of space suits suggest that the emphasis
should be on machinery.
However, sending people up to communicate the enthusiasm and wonder of
an adventure in orbit is an end in itself. Cost-optimal access
benefits all endeavors in the high frontier, which I think is your
point.

On Feb 27, 8:27 pm, "Michael Turner" wrote:
On Feb 27, 6:32 am, "Ian Parker" wrote:





On 27 Feb, 13:38, "Michael Turner" wrote:
The main threat would be in some opponent who decides to deny LEO to everybody, himself included,
through such low-tech means as your "bags of sand." They'd have to
kick a lot of sand, though. Which would mean they were already an
existing space power themselves to a great extent, and thus with some
incentive to exercise restraint, to preserve the value of a high sunk
cost (launch capability) for which they had to economize elsewhere in
their defense budget.

I don't know that you would need that much sand. You see space debris
is very much self generating. I will agree that this opponant would
have to be a reasonabl space power, which is why I previously used the
word symmetric. Asymmetric militarization of space is possible.
Suppose a symmetic enemy had LEO denied to him by ASAT techniques. At
that point there would be a great incentive to have bags of sand.
After all there would be little to lose.

We may well be in a situation where the worlds major powers are
largely in agreement and where threats come from rogue states and
terrorist groups without major space launch capabilities. My only
point is that if this is the case the disposition of defense spending
would be different from what it is. This one just has not been thought
through.

Disabling satellites without leaving debis is a no go as defeat will
provide an incentive for the bags of sand.

- Ian Parker

You may be right, Ian, but I think I'll duck out of this debate with a
good excuse: it's not clear how it relates to the subject: "Establish
demand".

-michael turner- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Actually, an asat arms race could well serve as a demand for greater
launch capacity. None of the major players, Russia, China or the US,
wants to poison the well for everyone with debre scattering doomsday
asats. On the other hand each wants to meet any potential threat with
an equal capability. If the defense establishment could drum up this
as a real possibility, launch capacity would be right up there in the
competition for a piece of the $300G/yr spent on weapons aquisition.

On 4 Mar, 01:52, "Totorkon" wrote:
On Feb 27, 8:27 pm, "Michael Turner" wrote:





On Feb 27, 6:32 am, "Ian Parker" wrote:

On 27 Feb, 13:38, "Michael Turner" wrote:
The main threat would be in some opponent who decides to deny LEO to everybody, himself included,
through such low-tech means as your "bags of sand." They'd have to
kick a lot of sand, though. Which would mean they were already an
existing space power themselves to a great extent, and thus with some
incentive to exercise restraint, to preserve the value of a high sunk
cost (launch capability) for which they had to economize elsewhere in
their defense budget.

I don't know that you would need that much sand. You see space debris
is very much self generating. I will agree that this opponant would
have to be a reasonabl space power, which is why I previously used the
word symmetric. Asymmetric militarization of space is possible.
Suppose a symmetic enemy had LEO denied to him by ASAT techniques. At
that point there would be a great incentive to have bags of sand.
After all there would be little to lose.

We may well be in a situation where the worlds major powers are
largely in agreement and where threats come from rogue states and
terrorist groups without major space launch capabilities. My only
point is that if this is the case the disposition of defense spending
would be different from what it is. This one just has not been thought
through.

Disabling satellites without leaving debis is a no go as defeat will
provide an incentive for the bags of sand.

- Ian Parker

You may be right, Ian, but I think I'll duck out of this debate with a
good excuse: it's not clear how it relates to the subject: "Establish
demand".

-michael turner- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Actually, an asat arms race could well serve as a demand for greater
launch capacity. None of the major players, Russia, China or the US,
wants to poison the well for everyone with debre scattering doomsday
asats. On the other hand each wants to meet any potential threat with
an equal capability. If the defense establishment could drum up this
as a real possibility, launch capacity would be right up there in the
competition for a piece of the $300G/yr spent on weapons aquisition.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Interesting thought! Quite a lot in it. There is one major political
point and that is that the major powers do not want to go to war
anyway. If that is the case then why spend vast sums on space anyway.
I suppose there is the case of a rogue state or terrorist group
getting control of a limited space capability. Just as we are afraid
of Iran getting nuclear weapons. ABM systems and (son of) Star Wars
are of course aimed at Iran and not at Russia or China.

If the major powers do not want war armiing against them is a waste of
money.

If this is the case it might be an idea for the big boys, the US, EU,
Russia and China to get together and share ABM and ASAT technology.
There also needs to be psychological research done on Al Qaeda and
other dangerous etherial beliefs. This again is something that is in
everyone's interest. Definition etherial view - This is a psycological
term for a belief which is strongly held and has no rational
antecedents. It is ofen religious - Dawkins, religion is the root of
all evil. Atheistic etherialism is also present and is very dangerous.

As I said symmetic armament is probably a waste of money. We need to
get together and combat the mutual asymmetic threat.


- Ian Parker

On Mar 4, 1:34 am, "Ian Parker" wrote:
On 4 Mar, 01:52, "Totorkon" wrote:





On Feb 27, 8:27 pm, "Michael Turner" wrote:

On Feb 27, 6:32 am, "Ian Parker" wrote:

On 27 Feb, 13:38, "Michael Turner" wrote:
The main threat would be in some opponent who decides to deny LEO to everybody, himself included,
through such low-tech means as your "bags of sand." They'd have to
kick a lot of sand, though. Which would mean they were already an
existing space power themselves to a great extent, and thus with some
incentive to exercise restraint, to preserve the value of a high sunk
cost (launch capability) for which they had to economize elsewhere in
their defense budget.

I don't know that you would need that much sand. You see space debris
is very much self generating. I will agree that this opponant would
have to be a reasonabl space power, which is why I previously used the
word symmetric. Asymmetric militarization of space is possible.
Suppose a symmetic enemy had LEO denied to him by ASAT techniques. At
that point there would be a great incentive to have bags of sand.
After all there would be little to lose.

We may well be in a situation where the worlds major powers are
largely in agreement and where threats come from rogue states and
terrorist groups without major space launch capabilities. My only
point is that if this is the case the disposition of defense spending
would be different from what it is. This one just has not been thought
through.

Disabling satellites without leaving debis is a no go as defeat will
provide an incentive for the bags of sand.

- Ian Parker

You may be right, Ian, but I think I'll duck out of this debate with a
good excuse: it's not clear how it relates to the subject: "Establish
demand".

-michael turner- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Actually, an asat arms race could well serve as a demand for greater
launch capacity. None of the major players, Russia, China or the US,
wants to poison the well for everyone with debre scattering doomsday
asats. On the other hand each wants to meet any potential threat with
an equal capability. If the defense establishment could drum up this
as a real possibility, launch capacity would be right up there in the
competition for a piece of the $300G/yr spent on weapons aquisition.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Interesting thought! Quite a lot in it. There is one major political
point and that is that the major powers do not want to go to war
anyway. If that is the case then why spend vast sums on space anyway.
I suppose there is the case of a rogue state or terrorist group
getting control of a limited space capability. Just as we are afraid
of Iran getting nuclear weapons. ABM systems and (son of) Star Wars
are of course aimed at Iran and not at Russia or China.

If the major powers do not want war armiing against them is a waste of
money.

If this is the case it might be an idea for the big boys, the US, EU,
Russia and China to get together and share ABM and ASAT technology.
There also needs to be psychological research done on Al Qaeda and
other dangerous etherial beliefs. This again is something that is in
everyone's interest. Definition etherial view - This is a psycological
term for a belief which is strongly held and has no rational
antecedents. It is ofen religious - Dawkins, religion is the root of
all evil. Atheistic etherialism is also present and is very dangerous.

As I said symmetic armament is probably a waste of money. We need to
get together and combat the mutual asymmetic threat.

- Ian Parker- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Sandbagging" space access seems an extremely unlikely scenario. It
is too advanced a technology for N Korea or Iran to mount on any kind
of scale, and it would take a long time for collision debre to
develope, not to mention the scorn it would generate from all the
players. My hope for some kind of launch rate competition derived
from a percieved military advantage is somewhat cynical, but the
synergism of military and civilian aviation is what has kept the US
the top aircraft manufacturer. The US defense budget is over $530G
for fiscal 2007, some 33 times nasa's budget. Were some of that to go
to space access via an RLV it would leave a more valuable legacy than
raptors and B2s.

kT wrote:
Frank Glover wrote:

kT wrote:

Totorkon wrote:

If the total cost of the shuttle program, about $150G, were divided by
the total number of launches, almost 120, and pretending that each
mission delivered 30 tons to orbit, the cost per pound would be over
$20000. Now make the wild assed assumption (WAA?) that we could have
a RLV, in the range of twenty tons to leo, like the largest of the
falcon 9 series or a delta IV, that made deliveries for $4000/Kg, but
only if it is launched atleast a dozen times a year. That would be 240
tons to leo for a bit under $1G. What could utilize the payload space
that might win public support and not run more than four times it's
delivery price.
Water, or bulk propellants have been suggested, but I don't think this
will make the kids all starry eyed.



I've already explained to you in great detail over and over again Tork.

First of all, there will always be a demand for oxygen and fresh
water, anywhere and anytime, and anyone who claims otherwise is a
crackpot.

Secondly, to establish demand for anything you have to have a product
and a means of transporting that product to market. Thus, by simple
logical deduction you need a prototype. In order to waive a great
deal of the development costs, it is a rational approach to use an
existing variation on existing products and markets. In space that
means building your prototype out of existing engines and tank
technology. Since demonstrably we do not yet have RLV technology, the
rational approach indicated that we should first attempt less
ambitious variations of existing ELV techniques, for instance,
recovery of the first stages, demonstration of cryogenic expendable
single stage to orbit, etc.

Now lets get into details. Rocket stages are fragile. They break when
even just slightly dented.


Other than perhaps Atlas, can you name some?

Ok, let's forget stage recovery. What about

stage reuse in orbit? We already have a demonstrable upper stage
orbital debris problem, so let's focus on that. For instance, when
man rated EELVs dock with the space station, they already include the
upper stage as payload, particularly with high energy cryogenic upper
stages. Those stages often contain significant amounts of residual
fuel, oxygen and hydrogen which is easily converted to water.


Scattered across various orbits, at various times. You want to
expend more propellant to gather it all to a useful location?


Well, orbital debris is such an extreme problem, much like global
warming, that changes in your lifestyle are not only required, but
demanded. We have a high inclination space station, and equatorial
orbit. I suggest these places be the starting point for all further deep
space and geosynchronous missions. Clearly the stopover at the ISS and
any equatorial fuel depot will require some extra fuel, but that is the
price you pay for being such stupid irrational ****s in the first place.

Thus we have our oxygen to

breathe, hydrogen for propellant, and water to drink and grow plants.
There then remains the engines, which clearly can be reused in any
ambitious deep space exploration program, and the hydrogen tank,
which is large enough in any case to be converted to habitat and
hotel rooms.


Will your guests be launched on these expendables?


They aren't expendables, they are reusables. Everything is reused.


Don't confuse re-using with re-manufacturing. If I can't refuel it
(remating a two-stage system, if I must go that route) and go again in a
reasonable turnaround time, that's not re-useable. Trying to use scrap
for something else may be recycling, but it's another issue.


No, the guests will fly on EELVs in the beginning, until an engine is
developed with deep throttling capabilities, or launch vehicles large
enough for clusters of seven engines, in which case they can be
sequentially cut off, to reduce maximum gee forces at the top.

Similar things were proposed for the shuttle ET, but it didn't
consider how fast any possible market would be saturated. Or wht would
happen when the next vehicle eventually came along that didn't use a
big ET. (And not all your upper stages are a useful volume, either)


Cryogenic upper stages are, all other fuels are pathological.


I'm okay with cryo upper stages, but not all applications can use
them efficently. (such as any need to light-up again a signifigant
later, without boil-off concerns).

And not all cryo upper stages give you any kind of useful volume.
Centaur being the best example.

And it still may be deposited far away (in delta-v terms) from where
you might use it.


The unused engines can be easily returned to Earth to be reused again.


By what means?


By cleverly designed nose cones.

Logic is great, isn't it? Let's consider launch. Single stage to
orbit is basically a glorified large upper stage.


Why?


Are you just pathologically stupid, or are you just a troll?


You have not answered the question. Why do you assert that 'single
stage to orbit is basically a glorified upper stage?' BEcause of
propellants? Not all upper stages *or* ssto proposals use H2/O2.

Because of their mass fraction? Upper stages, by definition, are
already at a signifigant speed and altutude before operation. They
aren't as constrained by dry structural weight as SSTO.

You can insult me, or explain yourself. Only the latter will help
your case.


Thus, the payload (engines,

tankage, residual fuel, payload and infrastructure) is always readily
available as product demonstrably in demand at any orbital spaceport.
The large orbiting cryogenic tankage for all purposes is the spaceport.

I've gone through all of the demonstrable benefits of cryogenic SSTO
and TSTO space flight. Now tell me, what the **** is wrong with you
people?


We prefer reality? And to think things through?


You prefer some crackpot version of irrationality.


It's not me that wants to build a space access infrastructure on an
orbital scavenger hunt.


Like - let's mothball our SSMEs until 2050.


If there's a need for engines with their perfomance at that time,
somebody will be willing to build them. And will not have forgotten the
original SSME technology when they do.

--

Frank

You know what to remove to reply...

Check out my web page: http://www.geocities.com/stardolphin1/link2.htm

"No matter how big or soft or warm your bed is, you still have to get
out of it."
- Grace Slick