OSP news..
Kaido Kert
http://www.sunspot.net/bal-te.spaceplane15feb15,0,3933146.story?coll=bal-hom
e-headlines
Quote: "It also would cost far less to operate than the shuttle's $500
million per flight. NASA hopes the space plane would shave the cost of
ferrying passengers to the station to $100 million per flight or less."
Wow! 100M$ per flight ? thats a real CATS winner ! Seven years and 12billion
to develop ... please.
I guess they didnt read it:
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/rlv-03a.html
Charles Buckley
Heh.. I liked the following:
"They are the only U.S. craft capable of carrying cargo into
orbit and the only ones large enough to haul the equipment
and building materials required to complete the $100
billion International Space Station, which has been in orbit
since 1998."
The only US craft capable of carrying cargo into orbit?
Larry Trutter
*sigh* Nothing ever changes with NASA.
To concerned spacers, my suggestion is to read the spacedaily link and
write to your Congresspersons about this scandal. They need to know
about NASA's consistent failures or, otherwise, they will assume
everything is "a-ok".
As Thomas Jefferson said, "Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom".
We have to be more active in getting our voices heard in Congress. I
don't know if that will be enough to counter infamous NASA pork-barrel
technique - "Oh wow! OSP plans parts are built in all 50 states! Now
that's visionary! Oooh!"
Is it possible to ask Congress to make it illegal for any NASA
officials to either directly or indirectly bad-mouth any of the
X-Prize contestants? Historically, NASA have been known to kill off
several companies with their "insightful" opinion.
Larry Trutter
Charles Buckley
>
> "Kaido Kert" <kaido...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3e5094a9$1...@news.estpak.ee>...
> > Reported by spacetoday.net
> > http://www.sunspot.net/bal-te.spaceplane15feb15,0,3933146.story?coll=bal-hom
> > e-headlines
> >
> > Quote: "It also would cost far less to operate than the shuttle's $500
> > million per flight. NASA hopes the space plane would shave the cost of
> > ferrying passengers to the station to $100 million per flight or less."
> >
> > Wow! 100M$ per flight ? thats a real CATS winner ! Seven years and 12billion
> > to develop ... please.
> > I guess they didnt read it:
> > http://www.spacedaily.com/news/rlv-03a.html
>
> *sigh* Nothing ever changes with NASA.
>
> To concerned spacers, my suggestion is to read the spacedaily link and
> write to your Congresspersons about this scandal. They need to know
> about NASA's consistent failures or, otherwise, they will assume
> everything is "a-ok".
>
Well. They could have said never. Personally, I am pleasantly
surprised whenever NASA actually comes up with a requirement
that is actually in the ball park of what they need. Of course,
the immediately demonstrate what they believe they are capable
of doing.
I think the following article is good and covers the issues:
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/ft_spaceplane_budget_021223.html
Brian Thorn
<kaido...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Reported by spacetoday.net
>http://www.sunspot.net/bal-te.spaceplane15feb15,0,3933146.story?coll=bal-hom
>e-headlines
>
>Quote: "It also would cost far less to operate than the shuttle's $500
>million per flight. NASA hopes the space plane would shave the cost of
>ferrying passengers to the station to $100 million per flight or less."
>
>Wow! 100M$ per flight ? thats a real CATS winner ! Seven years and 12billion
>to develop ... please.
Good grief... what was that writer smoking?
Brian
Kaido Kert
news:ai225v8la4hvkggid...@4ax.com...
> >Wow! 100M$ per flight ? thats a real CATS winner ! Seven years and
12billion
> >to develop ... please.
> Good grief... what was that writer smoking?
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=space+plane (
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/space/1770410 )
The question is, what are NASA planners smoking.
-kert
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
Bah, at that price it's useless.
Let's shoot say for less than $5 million a passenger!
>
Rand Simberg
Moore \(Strider\)" <moo...@greenms.com> made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>> Quote: "It also would cost far less to operate than the shuttle's $500
>> million per flight. NASA hopes the space plane would shave the cost of
>> ferrying passengers to the station to $100 million per flight or less."
>>
>> Wow! 100M$ per flight ? thats a real CATS winner ! Seven years and
>12billion
>> to develop ... please.
>> I guess they didnt read it:
>> http://www.spacedaily.com/news/rlv-03a.html
>>
>
>Bah, at that price it's useless.
And it ignores all of the Shuttle's other capabilities (e.g., cargo
delivery and return, use of the RMS as a construction aid, etc.).
I'll bet they're not including the price of the second cargo launch
that will be necessary because they're sending up crew on the OSP
instead of Shuttle.
They're also not including amortization of development costs, or if
they are, they're not stating assumed number of flights over time.
If it really costs twelve billion to develop, and they fly it monthly
(a very high rate, given current plans), it would take ten years of
flights to get the amortization charges down to a hundred million by
themselves (and that ignores the cost of money, since the up-front
development cost is much more valuable than the downstream savings).
It's also not clear if they're including annual fixed costs. I'll be
the hundred million is an estimate of the marginal cost per flight,
with some assumption about the cost of the ELV. Yet, unfairly, they
compare it to the average cost per flight of the Shuttle.
This is really economically absurd. It's a shame that reporters don't
understand basic economics.
--
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: postm...@fbi.gov
Edward Wright
> Wow! 100M$ per flight ? thats a real CATS winner ! Seven years and 12billion
> to develop ... please.
Real winner? This is engineering by press release. The EELV they're
planning to use costs more than $100 million, even in the
non-man-rated version. So, this number is unbelievable from the
outset.
More candid statements from NASA say they don't expect OSP to reduce
launch costs at all.
Michael Walsh
Kaido Kert wrote:
So Tumlinson's attitude seems to be NASA hasn't done anything right in
a long time and should basically stop trying.
If NASA is taking a long look at OSP possibilities and even considering going
back to a capsule (think Apollo or Soyuz) design then it could be a good thing.
However, I wouldn't bet on them ending up there.
No, it isn't CATS and it doesn't look like CATS is in the cards for
a long time.
Mike Walsh
Michael Walsh
Charles Buckley wrote:
The article sounds good and claims that the emphasis will be on doing things
with proven technology.
The difference between the chances of OSP before and after the
Columbia disaster is that there seems to be a more general belief in
the requirement for an alternate vehicle.
The question as to whether NASA will follow through and do what
they say they intend to do, and whether Congress and the Administration
will follow through when they determine the actual costs, has yet to
be answered.
Mike Walsh
Rand Simberg
Walsh <mp1w...@Adelphia.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>The question as to whether NASA will follow through and do what
>they say they intend to do, and whether Congress and the Administration
>will follow through when they determine the actual costs, has yet to
>be answered.
Based on the costs they've already made public, this program is
insane.
Rand Simberg
Walsh <mp1w...@Adelphia.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>No, it isn't CATS and it doesn't look like CATS is in the cards for
>a long time.
Certainly not from NASA.
Brian Thorn
<mp1w...@Adelphia.net> wrote:
>If NASA is taking a long look at OSP possibilities and even considering going
>back to a capsule (think Apollo or Soyuz) design then it could be a good thing.
>However, I wouldn't bet on them ending up there.
Well, they are saying capsules are an option. But don't hold your
breath.
Brian
Michael Walsh
Rand Simberg wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 23:57:11 GMT, in a place far, far away, Michael
> Walsh <mp1w...@Adelphia.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
> such a way as to indicate that:
>
> >The question as to whether NASA will follow through and do what
> >they say they intend to do, and whether Congress and the Administration
> >will follow through when they determine the actual costs, has yet to
> >be answered.
>
> Based on the costs they've already made public, this program is
> insane.
No, it isn't.
But it is certainly not CATS and is not going to reduce the
cost of manned space flight.
Mike Walsh
Michael Walsh
Rand Simberg wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 23:48:19 GMT, in a place far, far away, Michael
> Walsh <mp1w...@Adelphia.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
> such a way as to indicate that:
>
> >No, it isn't CATS and it doesn't look like CATS is in the cards for
> >a long time.
>
> Certainly not from NASA.
I don't see it coming from anywhere else, either.
Not for quite a while if you are discussing manned orbital
flight.
Mike Walsh
Rand Simberg
Walsh <mp1w...@Adelphia.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>> >The question as to whether NASA will follow through and do what
>> >they say they intend to do, and whether Congress and the Administration
>> >will follow through when they determine the actual costs, has yet to
>> >be answered.
>>
>> Based on the costs they've already made public, this program is
>> insane.
>
>No, it isn't.
And the justification for it is...?
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
Problem isn't capsule or lifting body. Problem is launch vehicle. No
matter what they chose from the current inventory it's going to cost to
much.
>
> Brian
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
"Rand Simberg" <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote in message
news:3e6f1903...@nntp.ix.netcom.com...
> On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 16:57:39 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Greg D.
> Moore \(Strider\)" <moo...@greenms.com> made the phosphor on my
> monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>
> >> Quote: "It also would cost far less to operate than the shuttle's $500
> >> million per flight. NASA hopes the space plane would shave the cost of
> >> ferrying passengers to the station to $100 million per flight or less."
> >>
> >> Wow! 100M$ per flight ? thats a real CATS winner ! Seven years and
> >12billion
> >> to develop ... please.
> >> I guess they didnt read it:
> >> http://www.spacedaily.com/news/rlv-03a.html
> >>
> >
> >Bah, at that price it's useless.
>
> And it ignores all of the Shuttle's other capabilities (e.g., cargo
> delivery and return, use of the RMS as a construction aid, etc.).
Rand, Rand,
Don't you know, some people don't believe those are worth anything.
We'll just use the ATV. Or the Russians. Or the Chinese. Or or or... :-)
>
> I'll bet they're not including the price of the second cargo launch
> that will be necessary because they're sending up crew on the OSP
> instead of Shuttle.
>
I wonder if $12 billion were invested in shuttle ops, say a LFFB, upgraded
ground-processing and all the other upgrades NASA has wanted what the cost
per flight of the shuttle would be.
At a marginal cost of $160 million now, I think it would be damn tough to
justify the OSP AND any necessary cargo launches and make any claim to being
economical. Heck, as you point out, they still have to fly the Shuttle.
Right now it's the only way to return the MLPMs.
Rand Simberg
Walsh <mp1w...@Adelphia.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>> >No, it isn't CATS and it doesn't look like CATS is in the cards for
>> >a long time.
>>
>> Certainly not from NASA.
>
>I don't see it coming from anywhere else, either.
>
>Not for quite a while if you are discussing manned orbital
>flight.
It could happen a lot sooner than 2010, and a lot cheaper to boot, if
the right incentives are in place.
Charles Buckley
>
> Charles Buckley wrote:
>
> > Larry Trutter wrote:
> > >
> > > "Kaido Kert" <kaido...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<3e5094a9$1...@news.estpak.ee>...
> > > > Reported by spacetoday.net
> > > > h
snip
My take on it.
The requirements are closer in line with what they need. Small
ferrying capability. I know they do need periodic larger mass
movements. However, there is still a fictional 10 year overlap
between bringing this vehicle online and when they plan to retire
Shuttle. (I say fictional as the current safety record for Shuttle
will work out to the loss of 2 more Shuttles by the projected end
of life of the program). At some point NASA will need to build a
return module for the mass range it needs to return from ISS.
Now, here's the rub.
They are using mostly proven tech. They are using the core of the
X-38 and a couple other programs.
How is it that Roton could build a technology demonstrator on
a completely new and radical concept in less time than NASA can
fly it's first tech demonstrator that has a 20 year head start?
To rub it in even further, Roton was built and flown for about 2.5%
of the projected development costs as the OSP.
You could argue that Roton never flew into space. I would put in
the counter argument that Roton was a much more complex R&D project
than OSP and started from scratch with no previous programs to
leverage off of.
The thing that scares me isn't that they threw out a cost estimate
of 12 billion dollars. It is that they have never met a budget that
they could not overrun. Given the start they have, this should be
coming in at less than half this cost.
Michael Kent
> Based on the costs they've already made public, this program is
> insane.
$2.4 billion makes it insane? How so?
Mike
-----
Michael Kent Apple II Forever!!
St. Peters, MO
mic...@remove.this.syndicomm.com
Michael Kent
> And the justification for it is...?
1) It will provide an alternate access to space, particularly the Space
Station.
2) It is to be 100 times safer than the Shuttle.
3) It will be the Crew Return Vehicle for the Space Station, allowing
the Station crew to be increased to six or seven.
4) At the launch rates NASA needs, it will be less expensive than the
Space Shuttle to operate.
5) It does not require radical new technology to develop.
6) While it is usable immediately, it leads to follow-on vehicles that
will further reduce launch costs and increase launch availability.
7) It is NOT aimed to be the nation's sole launch vehicle. The OSP is
aimed at NASA's requirements only. USAF and the commercial companies
are on their own (which is where they should be).
Michael Kent
> Now, here's the rub.
> They are using mostly proven tech. They are using the core of the
> X-38 and a couple other programs.
> How is it that Roton could build a technology demonstrator on
> a completely new and radical concept in less time than NASA can
> fly it's first tech demonstrator that has a 20 year head start?
In all due respect to Roton (and I have considerable respect for their
accomplishments), Roton's ATV didn't do much compared to the X-37 and
OSP re-entry demos.
> The thing that scares me isn't that they threw out a cost estimate
> of 12 billion dollars.
If you read the article closely, "they" in this case are a couple of
Congressional staffers, not NASA. It's not even clear "they" know
what "they" are talking about, especially since at this point in
time NASA is playing its cards close to its chest.
My guess is that this is being done deliberately by O'Keefe so that he
and his people can get a handle on the budget and schedule before every
technology development group at every NASA center can get its feet in
this new sandbox. Stay tuned. More details are due out shortly. I
think we'll have a good idea by the end of the year where this is going.
> It is that they have never met a budget that they could not overrun.
This will be a test of O'Keefe's management reforms, to be sure.
> Given the start they have, this should be
> coming in at less than half this cost.
I'd say it should be in the ballpark of $3-4 billion tops, including
fabrication of 4-6 vehicles, if done with a Lean Engineering approach.
Michael Kent
> And it ignores all of the Shuttle's other capabilities (e.g., cargo
> delivery and return, use of the RMS as a construction aid, etc.).
Those will have to be replaced one at a time. The last thing we want
is another monster that does everything at once but nothing well.
> If it really costs twelve billion to develop, and they fly it monthly
> (a very high rate, given current plans), it would take ten years of
> flights to get the amortization charges down to a hundred million by
> themselves (and that ignores the cost of money, since the up-front
> development cost is much more valuable than the downstream savings).
That $12 billion figure is from some undisclosed Congressional staffers.
It is not from NASA. NASA's numbers are so far estimated to be about
$2.4 billion for development plus additional money for fabrication.
> This is really economically absurd. It's a shame that reporters don't
> understand basic economics.
There were several glaring errors in that article, so I don't hold
its conclusions in very high regard.
Michael Kent
> Problem isn't capsule or lifting body. Problem is launch vehicle. No
> matter what they chose from the current inventory it's going to cost to
> much.
Compared to what? The Shuttle's overhead costs are over $2.5 billion
per year. If OSP can reduce the standing army such that OSP itself
costs $100 million per flight, on top of the $150 million Delta IV-H,
that would bring the ISS crew transport cost down to $500 million per
year. Assume a Delta IV-H based cargo carrier costs a similar amount,
and the Shuttle can be replaced with two vehicles costing NASA a total
of $1 billion a year (two OSP + two MPLM carriers). Adding a year's
worth of marginal Shuttle cost to the overhead cost, and OSP + cargo
carrier saves NASA about $2 billion / year.
That's money that can be put toward a reusable first stage to replace
the Delta IV-H.
It _can_ work. The devil's in the details.
Charles Buckley
>
> Charles Buckley <rijr...@frii.com> wrote:
>
> > Now, here's the rub.
>
> > They are using mostly proven tech. They are using the core of the
> > X-38 and a couple other programs.
>
> > How is it that Roton could build a technology demonstrator on
> > a completely new and radical concept in less time than NASA can
> > fly it's first tech demonstrator that has a 20 year head start?
>
> In all due respect to Roton (and I have considerable respect for their
> accomplishments), Roton's ATV didn't do much compared to the X-37 and
> OSP re-entry demos.
>
Hmm. Let's see. Roton. New unique concept. X-37 and X-38
tail end of 40 years of development.
There is a huge difference between having leveragable technology
with a huge backstore of design work against a completely new
technology.
X-38 does do much more than Gemini when you get down to it.
Everything Roton did was new.
The thing is, Roton has lifted more mass off a pad the past 15
years than any NASA launchers developed in the same timeframe.
> > The thing that scares me isn't that they threw out a cost estimate
> > of 12 billion dollars.
>
> If you read the article closely, "they" in this case are a couple of
> Congressional staffers, not NASA. It's not even clear "they" know
> what "they" are talking about, especially since at this point in
> time NASA is playing its cards close to its chest.
>
> My guess is that this is being done deliberately by O'Keefe so that he
> and his people can get a handle on the budget and schedule before every
> technology development group at every NASA center can get its feet in
> this new sandbox. Stay tuned. More details are due out shortly. I
> think we'll have a good idea by the end of the year where this is going.
>
> > It is that they have never met a budget that they could not overrun.
>
> This will be a test of O'Keefe's management reforms, to be sure.
>
> > Given the start they have, this should be
> > coming in at less than half this cost.
>
> I'd say it should be in the ballpark of $3-4 billion tops, including
> fabrication of 4-6 vehicles, if done with a Lean Engineering approach.
>
1 vehicle for flight test by 2006 for $2.4 billion. That is
straight from O'Keefe.
Kaido Kert
> 3) It will be the Crew Return Vehicle for the Space Station, allowing
> the Station crew to be increased to six or seven.
X-38 (almost complete HW) was to be CRV, why not finish that instead ?
> 4) At the launch rates NASA needs, it will be less expensive than the
> Space Shuttle to operate.
It also does less. Less expensive by how much ? Exactly how expensive is the
shuttle ?
> 5) It does not require radical new technology to develop.
This is not a justification for building a vehicle. If it doesnt require new
technology, why does it cost so much to develop ?
> 6) While it is usable immediately, it leads to follow-on vehicles that
> will further reduce launch costs and increase launch availability.
Its not immediately usable, its projected to enter service nine years from
now. There are lots of things that can be done instead to reduce launch
costs faster.
> 7) It is NOT aimed to be the nation's sole launch vehicle. The OSP is
> aimed at NASA's requirements only. USAF and the commercial companies
> are on their own (which is where they should be).
What are NASA's requirements ?
-kert
Tom Merkle
> On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 02:12:55 GMT, in a place far, far away, Michael
> Walsh <mp1w...@Adelphia.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
> such a way as to indicate that:
>
> >> >The question as to whether NASA will follow through and do what
> >> >they say they intend to do, and whether Congress and the Administration
> >> >will follow through when they determine the actual costs, has yet to
> >> >be answered.
> >>
> >> Based on the costs they've already made public, this program is
> >> insane.
> >
> >No, it isn't.
>
> And the justification for it is...?
And your reason for saying it's insane is...?
People who have to actually make decisions (not just naysay them) know
that there's more to factor into a project for consideration than just
cost. Such as... alternatives! As in so far the commercial market
hasn't provided any, unless you count the Soyuz as commercial, or as
an alternative to OSP....
Put together a company that makes an expendable (or
reusable--whatever) manned space vehicle, and NASA will get out of the
launch business. Till then, whine all you want, NASA will keep
spending the money as they and Congress see fit.
Tom Merkle
Kaido Kert
> reusable--whatever) manned space vehicle, and NASA will get out of the
> launch business. Till then, whine all you want, NASA will keep
> spending the money as they and Congress see fit.
I suggest you ask mr. Andrew Beal's opinion, on why "putting together" such
a company has been made quite hard...
-kert
Tom Merkle
> On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 02:14:20 GMT, in a place far, far away, Michael
> Walsh <mp1w...@Adelphia.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
> such a way as to indicate that:
>
> >> >No, it isn't CATS and it doesn't look like CATS is in the cards for
> >> >a long time.
> >>
> >> Certainly not from NASA.
> >
> >I don't see it coming from anywhere else, either.
> >
> >Not for quite a while if you are discussing manned orbital
> >flight.
>
> It could happen a lot sooner than 2010, and a lot cheaper to boot, if
> the right incentives are in place.
Yeah, like a $10 Billion X-prize.
I mean, manned orbital commercial flight in seven years--when we still
don't have even a suborbital manned commercial vehicle. I think that's
a bit optimistic.
Just how big an incentive are we talkin' here?
Tom Merkle
Tom Merkle
> much.
>
RIGHT ON!
All vehicles in the current inventory cost too much!
YEAH!
In fact, while we're at it, all government funded spaceflight costs
too much!
YEAH!
In fact, all spaceflight costs too much!
YEAH!
In fact, who cares about satellites!
YEAH YEAH YEAH!
Let's go back to the stone age and hunt piggies!
WHOOOO HOOOOO
KILL THE PIG, DRINK ITS BLOOD, SPILL ITS BRAINS...
Okay, you take the conch back.
But I'm gonna keep doing Lord of the Flies until people start
reciprocating--as in HAVING AN ALTERNATIVE IN MIND WHILE TAKING
POTSHOTS AT NASA.
I mean, it's not smart to kill the cow until you find another source
of milk...
Tom Merkle
Allen Thomson
> > 2) It is to be 100 times safer than the Shuttle.
> Exactly, how safe is Shuttle ? 100 * X = Y ? Give us X please.
The statistics for the shuttle indicate that it's a touch
under 99% safe (probability of loss of vehicle per launch
is slightly greater than 1%). This is consistent with the
best reliability demonstrated by other SLVs.
So "100 times safer" could be interpreted as a goal of 99.99%,
or 0.01% probability of loss per launch. IMHO, there's absolutely
no indication that rockets can be made that reliable, so the
the probabilty of loss of crew has to be decoupled from probability
of loss of vehicle. IOW, a 99% reliable rescue system on a 99%
reliable rocket. (Are there any estimates of the reliability
of the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo/Soyuz scheme?)
Kaido Kert
"Allen Thomson" <thom...@flash.net> wrote in message
news:501f9880.0302...@posting.google.com...
> > > 2) It is to be 100 times safer than the Shuttle.
> > Exactly, how safe is Shuttle ? 100 * X = Y ? Give us X please.
> The statistics for the shuttle indicate that it's a touch
> under 99% safe (probability of loss of vehicle per launch
> is slightly greater than 1%). This is consistent with the
> best reliability demonstrated by other SLVs.
the numbers are somewhat experimentally verified. Im not a statistics
expert, but this 99% must have quite a wide error margin in it, because the
sample set is very small.
> So "100 times safer" could be interpreted as a goal of 99.99%,
> or 0.01% probability of loss per launch. IMHO, there's absolutely
> no indication that rockets can be made that reliable, so the
> the probabilty of loss of crew has to be decoupled from probability
> of loss of vehicle. IOW, a 99% reliable rescue system on a 99%
> reliable rocket.
Lets assume 0.01% probability of loss of crew per launch. How many years and
how many billions would it take to confirm that, given projected NASA launch
rates and "generously cheap" 50mil launch cost ?
Claimed 99.99% reliability means squat. It takes at least ten thousand
launches to prove it. With tens of millions of cost per launch, its
practically impossible to prove it. NASA originally claimed astronomically
high reliability numbers for Shuttle as well.
The point being, until launch costs are reduced by couple of orders of
magnitude and launch rates gone up accordingly, all talk about several times
more reliable systems is moot.
-kert
Gert van Spijker
> ..unless you count the Soyuz as commercial, or as an alternative to OSP....
What do you think Nasa would estimate it would cost (in Money and
development time) to build a Soyuz style vehicle for EELV's instead of
the OSP?
Soyuz seems to be the "Volkswagen" of space. It would probably make
sense to build something similar to avoid depending on the Russian
uncertain future but have a fast and cost effective road to a Shuttle
alternative?
Gert van Spijker
Rand Simberg
merk...@msn.com (Tom Merkle) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>> >> Based on the costs they've already made public, this program is
>> >> insane.
>> >
>> >No, it isn't.
>>
>> And the justification for it is...?
>
>And your reason for saying it's insane is...?
http://www.interglobal.org/weblog/archives/002148.html#002148
>People who have to actually make decisions (not just naysay them) know
>that there's more to factor into a project for consideration than just
>cost. Such as... alternatives! As in so far the commercial market
>hasn't provided any, unless you count the Soyuz as commercial, or as
>an alternative to OSP....
It's never been incentivized to. Just the opposite, in fact. Private
industry knows what happens to people who attempt anything that might
compete with NASA's space industrial complex. Just ask the people who
tried to do ISF.
>Put together a company that makes an expendable (or
>reusable--whatever) manned space vehicle, and NASA will get out of the
>launch business.
Do you really believe that?
Rand Simberg
merk...@msn.com (Tom Merkle) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>> It could happen a lot sooner than 2010, and a lot cheaper to boot, if
>> the right incentives are in place.
>
>Yeah, like a $10 Billion X-prize.
I think that one billion would be adequate, but I'd make sure there
were prizes for second and third place as well, so there's competition
and diversity.
Rand Simberg
mic...@remove.this.syndicomm.com (Michael Kent) made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>> Based on the costs they've already made public, this program is
>> insane.
>
>$2.4 billion makes it insane? How so?
Where do you get 2.4 billion? The story I read said twelve billion,
and almost a decade.
Rand Simberg
mic...@remove.this.syndicomm.com (Michael Kent) made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>1) It will provide an alternate access to space, particularly the Space
>Station.
>
>2) It is to be 100 times safer than the Shuttle.
>
>3) It will be the Crew Return Vehicle for the Space Station, allowing
>the Station crew to be increased to six or seven.
>
>4) At the launch rates NASA needs, it will be less expensive than the
>Space Shuttle to operate.
Not with an up-front cost of twelve billion dollars.
>5) It does not require radical new technology to develop.
>
>6) While it is usable immediately, it leads to follow-on vehicles that
>will further reduce launch costs and increase launch availability.
>
>7) It is NOT aimed to be the nation's sole launch vehicle. The OSP is
>aimed at NASA's requirements only. USAF and the commercial companies
>are on their own (which is where they should be).
All those goals could be achieved faster and less expensively than
with OSP.
That twelve billion would be much better spent on low-cost access.
Rand Simberg
thom...@flash.net (Allen Thomson) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>So "100 times safer" could be interpreted as a goal of 99.99%,
>or 0.01% probability of loss per launch. IMHO, there's absolutely
>no indication that rockets can be made that reliable,
There's no question in my mind that they can be. It may be that
expendable rockets can't, but not rockets per se. There's nothing
intrinsically unreliable about a rocket.
Rand Simberg
mic...@remove.this.syndicomm.com (Michael Kent) made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>> The thing that scares me isn't that they threw out a cost estimate
>> of 12 billion dollars.
>
>If you read the article closely, "they" in this case are a couple of
>Congressional staffers, not NASA. It's not even clear "they" know
>what "they" are talking about, especially since at this point in
>time NASA is playing its cards close to its chest.
I don't know what article you read, but my criticism is based on the
article from the Baltimore Sun, that cited Dennis Smith.
http://www.sunspot.net/bal-te.spaceplane15feb15,0,3933146.story?coll=bal-home-headlines
No mention of Congressional staffers.
Rand Simberg
mic...@remove.this.syndicomm.com (Michael Kent) made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>Compared to what? The Shuttle's overhead costs are over $2.5 billion
>per year. If OSP can reduce the standing army such that OSP itself
>costs $100 million per flight, on top of the $150 million Delta IV-H,
>that would bring the ISS crew transport cost down to $500 million per
>year. Assume a Delta IV-H based cargo carrier costs a similar amount,
>and the Shuttle can be replaced with two vehicles costing NASA a total
>of $1 billion a year (two OSP + two MPLM carriers). Adding a year's
>worth of marginal Shuttle cost to the overhead cost, and OSP + cargo
>carrier saves NASA about $2 billion / year.
>
>That's money that can be put toward a reusable first stage to replace
>the Delta IV-H.
Does it have any propulsion capability other than OMS? If not, it's a
lousy upper stage for a reusable. That reusable first stage would
essentially be SSTO.
Jonathan Grobe
>
>There's no question in my mind that they can be. It may be that
>expendable rockets can't, but not rockets per se. There's nothing
>intrinsically unreliable about a rocket.
The problem is the extremely harsh environment in space so the
slightest problem can have major consequences. Contrast this
say with the automobile: has you car ever broken down and left
you stranded on the side of the road? It has happened to most
people, a minor inconvenience. Conversely in space frequently
fatal.
--
Jonathan Grobe Books
Browse our inventory of thousands of used books at:
http://www.grobebooks.com
Kaido Kert
news:slrnb54rrq...@worf.netins.net...
> In article <3e5a6530...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, Rand Simberg wrote:
> >
> >There's no question in my mind that they can be. It may be that
> >expendable rockets can't, but not rockets per se. There's nothing
> >intrinsically unreliable about a rocket.
> The problem is the extremely harsh environment in space so the
> slightest problem can have major consequences. Contrast this
> say with the automobile: has you car ever broken down and left
> you stranded on the side of the road? It has happened to most
> people, a minor inconvenience. Conversely in space frequently
> fatal.
http://www.google.com/search?q=autonauts
( hint: going at speeds 100kmh+ speeds on a tarmac track is a harsh
environment for humans too. Unless you sit in a safe vehicle )
Actually, Columbia should be a new chapter in "waggonauts" or NAFA story.
Kaido Kert
"Michael Kent" <mic...@remove.this.syndicomm.com> wrote in message
news:szl4a.23$2e...@news.more.net...
Here are some estimates on how these calculations will look like in 2023:
http://avoyagetoarcturus.blogspot.com/2003_02_01_avoyagetoarcturus_archive.h
tml#90291604
-kert
Rand Simberg
gr...@netins.net (Jonathan Grobe) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>>There's no question in my mind that they can be. It may be that
>>expendable rockets can't, but not rockets per se. There's nothing
>>intrinsically unreliable about a rocket.
>
>The problem is the extremely harsh environment in space so the
>slightest problem can have major consequences.
There's nothing particularly harsh about the space environment.
Undersea is much worse.
Entry is probably the most dangerous and harsh environment, but that
has nothing to do with propulsion.
There is no reason that space vehicles can't be reliable. Yes, the
costs of unreliability are much higher than with terrestrial vehicles,
but they can be built to be much more reliable than they have to
date--it's simply a matter of proper design and experience.
Jim Davis
"Rand Simberg" wrote...
> There's nothing particularly harsh about the space environment.
> Undersea is much worse.
<chuckle>
Just count the number of species that live in each!
Jim Davis
George William Herbert
>thom...@flash.net (Allen Thomson) glowed:
>>So "100 times safer" could be interpreted as a goal of 99.99%,
>>or 0.01% probability of loss per launch. IMHO, there's absolutely
>>no indication that rockets can be made that reliable,
>
>There's no question in my mind that they can be. It may be that
>expendable rockets can't, but not rockets per se. There's nothing
>intrinsically unreliable about a rocket.
I think rocketplanes stand a good chance of being on
the same general order of reliability as airliners are,
eventually.
When rocketplanes are built with airliner-like margins,
with airliner-like redundancy, with airliner-like
fleet operating experience, etc.
The number of hard lessons, decades of operation, etc.
that it took airliners to get to the point that ETOPS
was a reasonable concept should never be ignored.
While Rand's end goal is reasonable, I don't see any
legitimacy to claiming it is feasible in the nearterm
even if we go to completely reusable, properly margined
RLVs starting immediately. A true improvement of an order
of magnitude in safety and reliablity per decade is a
reasonable rate of progress. Telling the public we can
do more is probably irresponsible. There are still far
too many unknowns, and the economic / payload mass pressures
pushing margins down are so much worse in space access
compared to air vehicles.
-george william herbert
gher...@retro.com
Henry Spencer
Michael Kent <mic...@remove.this.syndicomm.com> wrote:
>> Problem isn't capsule or lifting body. Problem is launch vehicle. No
>> matter what they chose from the current inventory it's going to cost to
>> much.
>
>Compared to what? The Shuttle's overhead costs are over $2.5 billion
>per year.
And since the shuttle is not going to go away, those costs are not either.
>If OSP can reduce the standing army such that OSP itself
>costs $100 million per flight, on top of the $150 million Delta IV-H,
>that would bring the ISS crew transport cost down to $500 million per
>year.
But note that adding another shuttle flight to the existing schedule costs
only about $100M. It's the roughly-fixed overheads that make the shuttle
look costly. Unless you can eliminate the shuttle entirely, OSP does not
seem to be a very good deal.
>Assume a Delta IV-H based cargo carrier costs a similar amount...
Note that there are no plans to build such a thing, and you have to figure
in complications like an automated rendezvous system. (No, the US *won't*
just buy the Russian one.)
By the way, if it's to be a one-for-one replacement for the shuttle cargo
flghts, the cargo carrier has to come down as well as go up. There are
only three MPLMs; they are not expendable.
(Could you switch the station over to expendable supply modules and
greatly reduce the amount of downward cargo so it could be carried in
OSPs? Probably, but this isn't a small change.)
>...saves NASA about $2 billion / year.
>That's money that can be put toward a reusable first stage to replace
>the Delta IV-H.
NASA doesn't get to keep such savings. And NASA is forbidden to compete
with commercial vehicles like Delta IV.
--
Faster, better, cheaper requires leadership, | Henry Spencer
not just management. | he...@spsystems.net
Rand Simberg
Davis" <jimd...@earthlink.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
>> There's nothing particularly harsh about the space environment.
>> Undersea is much worse.
>
><chuckle>
>
>Just count the number of species that live in each!
I'm not sure that's a useful criterion in the context of this
discussion, Jim. Of course it's not harsh for life--it evolved there.
But it's very hard on mechanical equipment. I'd much rather design to
a vacuum than to hundreds of atmospheres of positive pressure in a
corrosive fluid.
The only reason that space hardware is more expensive than undersea
hardware is the high cost of delivering it to its destination, which
means extra money on reliability and weight reduction.
Rand Simberg
gher...@gw.retro.com (George William Herbert) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>While Rand's end goal is reasonable, I don't see any
>legitimacy to claiming it is feasible in the nearterm
>even if we go to completely reusable, properly margined
>RLVs starting immediately. A true improvement of an order
>of magnitude in safety and reliablity per decade is a
>reasonable rate of progress.
I think that we can get two orders with the next generation, once the
bugs are wrung out. I don't know if we'll ever get to air transport
reliability, though I suspect we probably can way down the road.
>Telling the public we can
>do more is probably irresponsible.
I'm not sure why it's "irresponsible" to claim two orders, but not
one. We have little data for either claim right now. You may be
right, but I may be as well, and I don't think that either of us are
being irresponsible to hold or proclaim our opinions.
The only thing that would be irresponsible would be to claim that
they're more than opinions.
Rand Simberg
he...@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>But note that adding another shuttle flight to the existing schedule costs
>only about $100M. It's the roughly-fixed overheads that make the shuttle
>look costly. Unless you can eliminate the shuttle entirely, OSP does not
>seem to be a very good deal.
Probably not even then, when you take development costs into account.
The real problem with OSP is the underlying assumption--that we have
to continue down the flawed path we started in 1973, that has us
spending billions for little value, and that it is not possible to
develop low-cost, routine-access, high-flight-rate vehicles.
Michael Walsh
Rand Simberg wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 02:12:55 GMT, in a place far, far away, Michael
> Walsh <mp1w...@Adelphia.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
> such a way as to indicate that:
>
> >> >The question as to whether NASA will follow through and do what
> >> >they say they intend to do, and whether Congress and the Administration
> >> >will follow through when they determine the actual costs, has yet to
> >> >be answered.
> >>
> >> Based on the costs they've already made public, this program is
> >> insane.
> >
> >No, it isn't.
>
> And the justification for it is...?
I would say all operational things.
Escape capability from the ISS.
Backup capability for manned operations in case of a disaster.
This rationale, of course, comes after the Columbia disaster.
and in the background:
Fixing a few details missing from the Shuttle such as an off-the-pad
escape capability.
Perhaps a few military capabilities that the military doesn't want
to pay for, may not use if they are provided, but will ask for as
part of the vehicle design.
Also, the initial cost figures were undoubtedly pulled out of
thin air and will be revised as the vehicle is further defined.
That last can lead to a far-ranging discussion depending on
how optimistic or pessimistic you wish to be.
Mike Walsh
G. L. Bradford Jr.
> Rand Simberg <simberg.interglobal> wrote:
>
> > And the justification for it is...?
>
> Station.
>
> 2) It is to be 100 times safer than the Shuttle.
>
> 3) It will be the Crew Return Vehicle for the Space Station, allowing
> the Station crew to be increased to six or seven.
>
> 4) At the launch rates NASA needs, it will be less expensive than the
> Space Shuttle to operate.
>
>
> 6) While it is usable immediately, it leads to follow-on vehicles that
> will further reduce launch costs and increase launch availability.
>
> 7) It is NOT aimed to be the nation's sole launch vehicle. The OSP is
> aimed at NASA's requirements only. USAF and the commercial companies
> are on their own (which is where they should be).
>
>
With a 12 billion dollar price tag NASA and Congress would make absolutely
sure no cheaper competitor ever actually got off the ground. "Rules? We make
the rules, we don't have to live by them."
Brad
George William Herbert
>I'm not sure why it's "irresponsible" to claim two orders, but not
>one. We have little data for either claim right now. You may be
>right, but I may be as well, and I don't think that either of us are
>being irresponsible to hold or proclaim our opinions.
Two points:
1) Vehicle margins versus reliability is a reasonably well known
tradeoff, and the next generation vehicle designs I have seen
did not have 2 order of magnitude reliability improvement
better margins. Feel free to correct this, if necessary
under NDA, if you have contrary evidence.
2) There are sufficient operational, vehicle design,
material aging, vehicle inspection interval, human factor
and environment gotchas left to discover the hard way
that the "unknown / unpredictable failure" component
of real reliablity / risk is unlikely to drop as
fast as you are predicting. Your own comments about
(very legitimately) fearing the previously unpredicted
possibility of a mesopheric atmospheric electrical
incident contribution to Columbia's loss show one corner
of this problem. We simply don't have enough experience
in space to be sure we understand it completely.
We certainly don't have enough experience with
vehicles we haven't built yet to be sure that we
understand them completely, or that when we build
them they will turn out to have all the margins and
safety we intended them to.
-george william herbert
gher...@retro.com
Rand Simberg
gher...@gw.retro.com (George William Herbert) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>>I'm not sure why it's "irresponsible" to claim two orders, but not
>>one. We have little data for either claim right now. You may be
>>right, but I may be as well, and I don't think that either of us are
>>being irresponsible to hold or proclaim our opinions.
>
>Two points:
>
>1) Vehicle margins versus reliability is a reasonably well known
>tradeoff,
I don't agree that it's that well known. We simply don't have enough
experience to say for certain.
>and the next generation vehicle designs I have seen
>did not have 2 order of magnitude reliability improvement
>better margins. Feel free to correct this, if necessary
>under NDA, if you have contrary evidence.
I can imagine a design that has the necessary margin, with existing
technology. I don't actually design vehicles, so I don't really have
anything to show you, but adequate margin can be achieved with
multiple stages, if necessary, though I think that two will suffice.
>2) There are sufficient operational, vehicle design,
>material aging, vehicle inspection interval, human factor
>and environment gotchas left to discover the hard way
>that the "unknown / unpredictable failure" component
>of real reliablity / risk is unlikely to drop as
>fast as you are predicting. Your own comments about
>(very legitimately) fearing the previously unpredicted
>possibility of a mesopheric atmospheric electrical
>incident contribution to Columbia's loss show one corner
>of this problem. We simply don't have enough experience
>in space to be sure we understand it completely.
>We certainly don't have enough experience with
>vehicles we haven't built yet to be sure that we
>understand them completely, or that when we build
>them they will turn out to have all the margins and
>safety we intended them to.
I agree, but that potentially argues against a single order of
magnitude improvement as well.
Kaido Kert
> vehicles we haven't built yet to be sure that we
> understand them completely, or that when we build
> them they will turn out to have all the margins and
> safety we intended them to.
Which brings us to the point, that currently, heavy investments in "orders
of magnitude better reliability" are essentially worthless.
Instead, the launch rate should be brought up by orders of magnitude ( and
given a fixed budget, launch price must go down correspondningly )
"The biggest problem with spaceflight is there isn't enough of it!"
-- Dr. Peter H. Diamandis, Chairman of X-Prize
http://xprize.org/press/release_025.html
Edward Wright
> And your reason for saying it's insane is...?
"...the costs they've already made public..."
What part of that did you not understand.
> People who have to actually make decisions (not just naysay them) know
> that there's more to factor into a project for consideration than just
> cost. Such as... alternatives!
Paying who have to pay for alternatives know that every alternative is
not worth the cost. You haven't presented anything to show that
FYI, Rand used to be a program manager for space transportation at
Rockwell International, which built the Space Shuttle. Saying he has
never had to make decisions seems a bit presumptuous.
Rand does not take the arrogant view that only aerospace
decision-makers should have a say in how the government spends
taxpayers' money, but since you seem to -- could you tell us what
experience you have in space transportion, in a decision-making role?
> As in so far the commercial market hasn't provided any,
Why should the commercial market provide the government with something
the government clearly isn't in buying? You sound like the boy who
killed his parents and then pleaded for leniency as an orphan.
> Put together a company that makes an expendable (or
> reusable--whatever) manned space vehicle, and NASA will get out of the
> launch business.
All the evidence suggests otherwise. If NASA were willing to get out
of the launch business, it would be putting out requests for
commercial bids right now. Instead, it is designing an Orbital Space
Plane to perpetuate its monopoly for another 20 years, and a 2nd
Generation RLV beyond that, and a 3rd Generation RLV beyond that. Only
the most naive persons would conclude that NASA intends to get out of
the launch business, now or ever.
You appear to have little understanding of how monopolies behave.
Of course, the law already says NASA is supposed to get out of the
launch business. Why should "alternatives" take priority over obeying
the law?
> Till then, whine all you want, NASA will keep
> spending the money as they and Congress see fit.
You've never heard of representative democracy? You're unaware that
Congress and the Administration (of which NASA is part) are answerable
to the people?
FYI, Congress saw fit to pass the Launch Services Purchase Act. NASA
simply ignores the law.
George William Herbert
>gher...@gw.retro.com (George William Herbert) glowed:
>>>I'm not sure why it's "irresponsible" to claim two orders, but not
>>>one. We have little data for either claim right now. You may be
>>>right, but I may be as well, and I don't think that either of us are
>>>being irresponsible to hold or proclaim our opinions.
>>
>>Two points:
>>
>>1) Vehicle margins versus reliability is a reasonably well known
>>tradeoff,
>
>I don't agree that it's that well known. We simply don't have enough
>experience to say for certain.
I am not particularly an expert in the technical history of
aviation safety margins and reliability. Not sure anyone is,
come to think of it. But I have looked at the problem.
Safety margins grew noticably during the periods of time that
the largest safety increases were being made, until the current
FAA standards came into being and then it was mostly systems
reliability and redundance that got us from there to here.
Noticably, current aerospace margins, including those proposed
on most RLVs to date and those in use on Shuttle and other
manned spacecraft, are noticably lower than current FAA
margins...
The gross unknown can be managed to some degree by more
margins and redundancy... what is most important is recognizing
when the gross unknown has become routine and repetitive,
rather than unique or extremely rare events. Challenger involved
among other things a failure to recognize that segment joint
seal blowthroughs had gone from being unexpectedly rare to
routine and repetitive. And thence to one which was much
worse due to the cold, enough that it outright failed.
The Columbia foam-shedding may have been another, lesser example.
There was attention on the problem but it appeared to be
minor, not a flight risk on an ongoing basis. Whether that
was in fact the root cause or a major contributing factor is
yet to be determined at this point, of course.
The potential Columbia electrical event which may have
happened would be a case of something rare enough that
it's truly out of the blue. In that case, only more
strength and margins might have done any good.
Shuttle was known to not have good margins in
a lot of areas...
-george william herbert
gher...@retro.com
Edward Wright
> In fact, who cares about satellites!
Mostly DoD, NOAA, and communications companies. None of them depend on
NASA launch vehicles. Orbital Space Plane has nothing to do with
satellites.
> Let's go back to the stone age and hunt piggies!
> WHOOOO HOOOOO
If you can't imagine any alternative besides a government monopoly
with trivial flight rates and hunting pigs, that's your problem.
> But I'm gonna keep doing Lord of the Flies until people start
> reciprocating--as in HAVING AN ALTERNATIVE IN MIND WHILE TAKING
> POTSHOTS AT NASA.
People have proposed plenty of alternatives. You don't like those
alternatives? That's your problem, but it doesn't mean there are no
alternatives.
> I mean, it's not smart to kill the cow until you find another source
> of milk...
The problem is, we aren't getting milk from the cow. The "cow"
produces only a few drops per year, and they are consumed entirely by
the people at NASA who are in charge of milking the cow.
All of your arguments seem to be based on the old paradigm, with its
false dichotomy between a miniscule Manned Space Program and the end
of all human spaceflight. In reality, those two choices are roughly
equivalent. The difference between six space flights per year and zero
is mere rounding error. The real choice is between the current program
with its trivial flight rates and a robust, vital space transportation
industry with millions of passengers.
Henry Spencer
>The problem is the extremely harsh environment in space so the
>slightest problem can have major consequences. Contrast this
>say with the automobile: has you car ever broken down and left
>you stranded on the side of the road? It has happened to most
Try it on a rural Montana or Saskatchewan road, at night, with a
temperature of -30deg, a 30mph wind, and blowing snow. It may be days
before anyone even finds the car; if you leave the car, they may not find
your body until spring.
There is no shortage of Earthly environments where a car breakdown can be
fatal.
George Weinberg
In my grad school days, I once won a dollar by
betting that ping-pong ball could survive
being pumped down in a vacuum chamber. Not
nearly as good a vacuum as space, but that doesn't
really matter, the pressure differnce is still essentially
1 atm between the inside and the outside.
OTOH, maybe it would be able to survive a deep
sea environment also, I've never had a chance to
check.
George
Rand Simberg
ab...@nospam.com (George Weinberg) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>In my grad school days, I once won a dollar by
>betting that ping-pong ball could survive
>being pumped down in a vacuum chamber. Not
>nearly as good a vacuum as space, but that doesn't
>really matter, the pressure differnce is still essentially
>1 atm between the inside and the outside.
>
>OTOH, maybe it would be able to survive a deep
>sea environment also, I've never had a chance to
>check.
I doubt if it would make it past thirty feet.
Michael Walsh
Kaido Kert wrote:
> > Put together a company that makes an expendable (or
> > reusable--whatever) manned space vehicle, and NASA will get out of the
> > launch business. Till then, whine all you want, NASA will keep
> > spending the money as they and Congress see fit.
>
> I suggest you ask mr. Andrew Beal's opinion, on why "putting together" such
> a company has been made quite hard...
>
> -kert
And you will get his rather self serving answer that he gives
to avoid facing up to his own problems.
Mike Walsh
Michael Walsh
Rand Simberg wrote:
> On 18 Feb 2003 01:04:10 -0800, in a place far, far away,
> merk...@msn.com (Tom Merkle) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
> such a way as to indicate that:
>
> >> >> Based on the costs they've already made public, this program is
> >> >> insane.
> >> >
> >> >No, it isn't.
> >>
> >> And the justification for it is...?
> >
> >And your reason for saying it's insane is...?
>
> http://www.interglobal.org/weblog/archives/002148.html#002148
>
> >People who have to actually make decisions (not just naysay them) know
> >that there's more to factor into a project for consideration than just
> >cost. Such as... alternatives! As in so far the commercial market
> >hasn't provided any, unless you count the Soyuz as commercial, or as
> >an alternative to OSP....
>
> It's never been incentivized to. Just the opposite, in fact. Private
> industry knows what happens to people who attempt anything that might
> compete with NASA's space industrial complex. Just ask the people who
> tried to do ISF.
>
> >Put together a company that makes an expendable (or
> >reusable--whatever) manned space vehicle, and NASA will get out of the
> >launch business.
>
> Do you really believe that?
My own belief is there is definitely contention between NASA and any
private party that wants to do things outside the limits of what they
consider
appropriate for private enterprise.
I think it gets overstated sometimes by people who prefer to blame
NASA for the real economic problems faced by a company trying to
enter the space launch market.
In the unmanned reusable launch area NASA seems to be willing to
contract with Kistler, but so far that hasn't moved Kistler very far
down the line to an operational system.
NASA will get out of the launch business only if forced to by
firm direction from the Presidential Administration and/or
laws and financial controls provided by Congress.
Mike Walsh
Michael Walsh
colorful adverbs and adjectives I will limit my comments. Apparently you were doing
some fast typing because some of your reply is incoherent.
Not a big problem, I sometimes do the same thing.
Edward Wright wrote:
> merk...@msn.com (Tom Merkle) wrote in message news:<c1d524e3.03021...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > And your reason for saying it's insane is...?
>
> "...the costs they've already made public..."
>
> What part of that did you not understand.
Well, considering what you quoted, I don't understand any of it. Trimming quotes is usually
a good idea, but you trimmed so much here that it doesn't make sense.
> > People who have to actually make decisions (not just naysay them) know
> > that there's more to factor into a project for consideration than just
> > cost. Such as... alternatives!
>
> Paying who have to pay for alternatives know that every alternative is
> not worth the cost. You haven't presented anything to show that
Are you trying to say that every alternative is not a good one?
Couldn't you just have asked Merkle to specify some alternatives?
> FYI, Rand used to be a program manager for space transportation at
> Rockwell International, which built the Space Shuttle. Saying he has
> never had to make decisions seems a bit presumptuous.
He never said that Rand never had to make decisions. He did say
that people who make decisions have to take things other than cost
into consideration.
> Rand does not take the arrogant view that only aerospace
> decision-makers should have a say in how the government spends
> taxpayers' money, but since you seem to -- could you tell us what
> experience you have in space transportion, in a decision-making role?
OK, Ed. Just how much experience do you have in space transportation,
in a decision-making role?
Most of the engineers working on large aerospace projects are not
project managers. They do honest technical worker and usually supply
recommendations and technical analysis to manager and if the manager
is a good one he will be in on the design decision. Quite frequently
the engineer gets over-ruled because of overall considerations.
If the manager is good, he will explain the reasons for the decision
and the engineer will go back to do his best to implement the selected
design.
> > As in so far the commercial market hasn't provided any,
>
> Why should the commercial market provide the government with something
> the government clearly isn't in buying?
That doesn't make much sense, you probably mean't isn't interested in buying.
It is the old problem that is hard to sell something non-existent to a customer.
Perhaps if it was developed there would be a market for it.
> You sound like the boy who
> killed his parents and then pleaded for leniency as an orphan.
You have some particular reason for making an uncalled for insult?
Lack of civility in discussion is usually a sign that the writer has
no good response to offer.
> > Put together a company that makes an expendable (or
> > reusable--whatever) manned space vehicle, and NASA will get out of the
> > launch business.
>
> All the evidence suggests otherwise. If NASA were willing to get out
> of the launch business, it would be putting out requests for
> commercial bids right now.
Commercial bids for what? I assume this is the old argument of
contract for services. I assume you would scream equally hard if
a government customer, as normal customers do, set some precise
qualifications for the desired service.
> Instead, it is designing an Orbital Space
> Plane to perpetuate its monopoly for another 20 years, and a 2nd
> Generation RLV beyond that, and a 3rd Generation RLV beyond that. Only
> the most naive persons would conclude that NASA intends to get out of
> the launch business, now or ever.
I agree that NASA doesn't intend to get out of the launch business
with respect to manned launch vehicles.
> You appear to have little understanding of how monopolies behave.
>
> Of course, the law already says NASA is supposed to get out of the
> launch business. Why should "alternatives" take priority over obeying
> the law?
NASA is supposed to buy commercial launches when they are available.
They don't have to procure non-existent items.
> > Till then, whine all you want, NASA will keep
> > spending the money as they and Congress see fit.
>
> You've never heard of representative democracy? You're unaware that
> Congress and the Administration (of which NASA is part) are answerable
> to the people?
Yes, every time there is an election. In the interim our elected leaders and
their appointees make the decsions. You expressed opinion in the past
that claimed that NASA should accept and implement the ideas of some
group of self-appointed space activists is just ridiculous.
Did I manage to mis-state your views?
> FYI, Congress saw fit to pass the Launch Services Purchase Act. NASA
> simply ignores the law.
They seem to be following it in considerable detail. They do buy
their launches from private contractors.
Mike Walsh
Michael Walsh
Charles Buckley wrote:
> Michael Walsh wrote:
> >
>
>
> Now, here's the rub.
>
> They are using mostly proven tech. They are using the core of the
> X-38 and a couple other programs.
>
> How is it that Roton could build a technology demonstrator on
> a completely new and radical concept in less time than NASA can
> fly it's first tech demonstrator that has a 20 year head start?
> To rub it in even further, Roton was built and flown for about 2.5%
> of the projected development costs as the OSP.
>
> You could argue that Roton never flew into space. I would put in
> the counter argument that Roton was a much more complex R&D project
> than OSP and started from scratch with no previous programs to
> leverage off of.
I believe your 2.5% figure refers to the difference in cost between what
Rotary Rocket predicted as their cost to develop and orbital test vehicle
and a projected OSP cost of about $13 billion because I understand that
Rotary Rocket spent $25 million to developt it's Atmospheric Test Vehicle
that tested a fixed blade configuration of its landing system. That comes
to $ 1 billion dollars if you use that 2.5% figure.
Rotary Rocket claimed they could do it for about the cost of a 747
or in the $200-250 region. I never believed they would be able to do
this for that amount. This all remains a theoretical argument because they
never got the money to try.
I would have liked to see the Roton concept built and tested, but as
a commercial project it was hard to see how they would be able to
get their money back from launch fees.
The rub is that if they could have really developed a manned launch
vehicle for that amount of money it should have resulted in a flow
of contracts from other sources.
OK. The problem is that predicted launch costs for manned vehicles
by commercial entrepeneurs are drastically lower than both estimated
and actual costs of government developed launch systems.
Either the government is vastly overspending during the development
of launch systems or the entrepeneurs are drastically underestimating
the real costs of developing a manned reusable launch vehicle.
The rub is that both of these things could be true.
Mike Walsh
Michael Walsh
Rand Simberg wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 02:14:20 GMT, in a place far, far away, Michael
> Walsh <mp1w...@Adelphia.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
> such a way as to indicate that:
>
> >> >No, it isn't CATS and it doesn't look like CATS is in the cards for
> >> >a long time.
> >>
> >> Certainly not from NASA.
> >
> >I don't see it coming from anywhere else, either.
> >
> >Not for quite a while if you are discussing manned orbital
> >flight.
>
> It could happen a lot sooner than 2010, and a lot cheaper to boot, if
> the right incentives are in place.
OK, you can take a shot at listing the incentives you believe are necessary.
Remember, this time we are talking about a manned reusable system for
orbital flight, not a suborbital tourist vehicle.
I will make a few statements on why I don't believe that CATS is likely
to be a result of the OSP program.
Primary - There is no way to reduce the operational costs of the space
transportation if you keep operating the Shuttle and have the continued
necessity of keeping the infrastructure available to fly the Shuttle. It
doesn't even make much difference whether or not you spend enough
money to maximize the likelihood of flying the Shuttle safely, from the
over-all cost standpoint.
Secondary-Spending the additional money to develop and operate the
OSP will increase, not decrease the over-all cost of the space
transportation
system.
Once two vehicles are developed and flying it will be impossible to
determine the cost differences between specifying a Shuttle flight or
an OSP flight. The direct operating costs between the two vehicles
will be easy to determine, but apportioning the infrastructure cost
between them will become even more impossible than determining
the actual costs of flying the Shuttle.
The last paragraph can be a subject of argumentation for at least
as many years in the future as it has in the past.
Mike Walsh
Michael Walsh
Tom Merkle wrote:
> "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" <moo...@greenms.com> wrote in message news:<qqh4a.43691$9U3....@twister.nyroc.rr.com>...
> > "Brian Thorn" <brian...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:5t335v8gbu8co8b04...@4ax.com...
> > > On Mon, 17 Feb 2003 23:48:19 GMT, Michael Walsh
> > > <mp1w...@Adelphia.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > >If NASA is taking a long look at OSP possibilities and even considering
> > going
> > > >back to a capsule (think Apollo or Soyuz) design then it could be a good
> > thing.
> > > >However, I wouldn't bet on them ending up there.
> > >
> > > Well, they are saying capsules are an option. But don't hold your
> > > breath.
> >
> > Problem isn't capsule or lifting body. Problem is launch vehicle. No
> > matter what they chose from the current inventory it's going to cost too
> > much.
> >
> RIGHT ON!
> All vehicles in the current inventory cost too much!
> YEAH!
> In fact, while we're at it, all government funded spaceflight costs
> too much!
> YEAH!
> In fact, all spaceflight costs too much!
> YEAH!
> In fact, who cares about satellites!
> YEAH YEAH YEAH!
> Let's go back to the stone age and hunt piggies!
> WHOOOO HOOOOO
> KILL THE PIG, DRINK ITS BLOOD, SPILL ITS BRAINS...
>
> Okay, you take the conch back.
>
> But I'm gonna keep doing Lord of the Flies until people start
> reciprocating--as in HAVING AN ALTERNATIVE IN MIND WHILE TAKING
> POTSHOTS AT NASA.
>
> I mean, it's not smart to kill the cow until you find another source
> of milk...
>
> Tom Merkle
You are perfectly ready for an on-line discussion with Ed Wright.
I believe you are already in one.
Mike Walsh
Michael Walsh
Edward Wright wrote:
> merk...@msn.com (Tom Merkle) wrote in message news:<c1d524e3.03021...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > In fact, who cares about satellites!
>
> Mostly DoD, NOAA, and communications companies. None of them depend on
> NASA launch vehicles. Orbital Space Plane has nothing to do with
> satellites.
Does this mean that NASA is actually obeying the National Launch Services Act?
> > Let's go back to the stone age and hunt piggies!
> > WHOOOO HOOOOO
>
> If you can't imagine any alternative besides a government monopoly
> with trivial flight rates and hunting pigs, that's your problem.
Finally, Ed, someone is willing to discuss things at your level.
> > But I'm gonna keep doing Lord of the Flies until people start
> > reciprocating--as in HAVING AN ALTERNATIVE IN MIND WHILE TAKING
> > POTSHOTS AT NASA.
>
> People have proposed plenty of alternatives. You don't like those
> alternatives? That's your problem, but it doesn't mean there are no
> alternatives.
There are alternatives to everything but, as you have said, not all
alternatives are good alternatives.
> > I mean, it's not smart to kill the cow until you find another source
> > of milk...
>
> The problem is, we aren't getting milk from the cow. The "cow"
> produces only a few drops per year, and they are consumed entirely by
> the people at NASA who are in charge of milking the cow.
I love the way this argument is going.
> All of your arguments seem to be based on the old paradigm, with its
> false dichotomy between a miniscule Manned Space Program and the end
> of all human spaceflight. In reality, those two choices are roughly
> equivalent. The difference between six space flights per year and zero
> is mere rounding error.
A statistician yet.
Your statement stands by itself. It is difficult to comment on a remark
that can stand as its own critique.
> The real choice is between the current program
> with its trivial flight rates and a robust, vital space transportation
> industry with millions of passengers.
Which we will somehow achieve by thinking real hard.
Mike Walsh
Michael Walsh
Michael Kent wrote:
> Rand Simberg <simberg.interglobal> wrote:
>
> > Based on the costs they've already made public, this program is
> > insane.
>
> $2.4 billion makes it insane? How so?
>
> Mike
>
> -----
> Michael Kent Apple II Forever!!
> St. Peters, MO
> mic...@remove.this.syndicomm.com
I believe he is referring to the $13 billion development cost that got
mentioned
as a cost to completion.
I will agree with Rand that it could be called insane if someone expected
the OSP to directly lower launch costs during a period when both the
OSP and the Shuttle are flying.
Otherwise, Rand is just going down the over-wrought statement path.
However, if you want some real rants see the Merkle-Wright thread.
Mike Walsh
Michael Walsh
Rand Simberg wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 07:11:00 GMT, in a place far, far away,
> mic...@remove.this.syndicomm.com (Michael Kent) made the phosphor on
> my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>
> >> Based on the costs they've already made public, this program is
> >> insane.
> >
> >$2.4 billion makes it insane? How so?
>
> Where do you get 2.4 billion? The story I read said twelve billion,
> and almost a decade.
You mean you saw a lower figure that the 13 billion I saw?
I also point out that this is 2003 and 2010 is measurably shorter
than a decade.
Mike Walsh
Michael Walsh
Michael Kent wrote:
> Rand Simberg <simberg.interglobal> wrote:
>
> > And the justification for it is...?
>
> 1) It will provide an alternate access to space, particularly the Space
> Station.
>
> 2) It is to be 100 times safer than the Shuttle.
>
> 3) It will be the Crew Return Vehicle for the Space Station, allowing
> the Station crew to be increased to six or seven.
>
> 4) At the launch rates NASA needs, it will be less expensive than the
> Space Shuttle to operate.
>
> 5) It does not require radical new technology to develop.
>
> 6) While it is usable immediately, it leads to follow-on vehicles that
> will further reduce launch costs and increase launch availability.
>
> 7) It is NOT aimed to be the nation's sole launch vehicle. The OSP is
> aimed at NASA's requirements only. USAF and the commercial companies
> are on their own (which is where they should be).
>
> Mike
>
> -----
> Michael Kent Apple II Forever!!
> St. Peters, MO
> mic...@remove.this.syndicomm.com
OK, it sounds like the arguments in its favor that I have read and
that I basically agree with. I do have a few caveats.
2. 100 times safer than the Shuttle is a goal, but it isn't clear how this
will
be achieved. You could also reasonably set a goal to make the Shuttle
100 times safer than it is now and probably achieve it at a lower cost.
4. Very likely true on a basis of direct operating costs for a particular
flight,
but you will never have enough savings to pay back the development
costs.
5. It is still a reasonably complex design problem. I believe it would
require
some technology improvements in launch escape systems. There is a
program
on this on a separate contract.
6. Well, "immediately" is after the vehicle is developed and available for
service.
I don't regard 2010 as particularly immediate. Also item 6 has an
almost
inherent conflict with item 5. The trick is to accomplish an improved
design
without requiring any drastic improvements in materials or aerospace
vehicle
construction techniques.
7. Stay tuned. I hope they will keep the OSP out of the commercial
systems
ball park, but I don't believe that the Air Force won't insert its
influence to
try to get the OSP to do some of its own requirements.
I am in favor of the OSP, but I do have the concerns that I expressed.
Mike Walsh
Michael Walsh
Kaido Kert wrote:
> > 2) It is to be 100 times safer than the Shuttle.
> Exactly, how safe is Shuttle ? 100 * X = Y ? Give us X please.
Figure it out for yourself. 2 fatal failures in how many launches?
That isn't the problem unless you believe that 100 times safer isn't
good enough. The problem is how do you accomplish it?
> > 3) It will be the Crew Return Vehicle for the Space Station, allowing
> > the Station crew to be increased to six or seven.
> X-38 (almost complete HW) was to be CRV, why not finish that instead ?
Probably because it doesn't do anything else. Also, while there is fairly
complete
hardware for a X-38 test that doesn't make it a CRV.
Just a judgment call by NASA.
> > 4) At the launch rates NASA needs, it will be less expensive than the
> > Space Shuttle to operate.
> It also does less. Less expensive by how much ? Exactly how expensive is the
> shuttle ?
Yes, it does less. Depending on the cost of the launch vehicle, it probably
would
have moderately lower direct operating costs than the Shuttle. No one knows
exactly how much the Shuttle really costs and it will become even more difficult
to determine when the infrastructure costs have to be allocated to two different
types of vehicle.
The cost of the OSP will never be completely recovered, even if it does provide
significantly lower direct operating costs. This is particularly true if the
Shuttle
is still required to be operable.
> > 5) It does not require radical new technology to develop.
> This is not a justification for building a vehicle. If it doesnt require new
> technology, why does it cost so much to develop ?
It is a brand new vehicle and the way NASA does things new vehicles are
costly to develop. The difference between doing something without developing
new technology is you have a fighting chance of having an operational vehicle
at the end of the program instead of another canceled program.
> > 6) While it is usable immediately, it leads to follow-on vehicles that
> > will further reduce launch costs and increase launch availability.
> Its not immediately usable, its projected to enter service nine years from
> now. There are lots of things that can be done instead to reduce launch
> costs faster.
And that would be? By the way, this is 2003 and the date I saw was
2010. OK, I think I did see another date of 2012.
> > 7) It is NOT aimed to be the nation's sole launch vehicle. The OSP is
> > aimed at NASA's requirements only. USAF and the commercial companies
> > are on their own (which is where they should be).
> What are NASA's requirements ?
>
> -kert
NASA's requirements? I haven't seen them listed yet.
Mike Walsh
Michael Walsh
Rand Simberg wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 12:18:43 -0600, in a place far, far away, "Jim
> Davis" <jimd...@earthlink.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
> in such a way as to indicate that:
>
> >> There's nothing particularly harsh about the space environment.
> >> Undersea is much worse.
> >
> ><chuckle>
> >
> >Just count the number of species that live in each!
>
> I'm not sure that's a useful criterion in the context of this
> discussion, Jim. Of course it's not harsh for life--it evolved there.
>
> But it's very hard on mechanical equipment. I'd much rather design to
> a vacuum than to hundreds of atmospheres of positive pressure in a
> corrosive fluid.
>
> The only reason that space hardware is more expensive than undersea
> hardware is the high cost of delivering it to its destination, which
> means extra money on reliability and weight reduction.
We could also get back to the problem of doing landings and launches
in Antarctica.
Seems we covered that a bit a few years back.
Mike Walsh
Michael Walsh
George Weinberg wrote:
Try pumping the vacuum on the interior of the ping-pong
ball and see how it works.
Mike Walsh
Rand Simberg
Walsh <mp1w...@Adelphia.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>OK. The problem is that predicted launch costs for manned vehicles
>by commercial entrepeneurs are drastically lower than both estimated
>and actual costs of government developed launch systems.
>
>Either the government is vastly overspending during the development
>of launch systems or the entrepeneurs are drastically underestimating
>the real costs of developing a manned reusable launch vehicle.
>
>The rub is that both of these things could be true.
Yes, but given the appalling performance of the government to date,
and the huge disparity betweent the estimates, it might not be a bad
expenditure to put it to the test. We couldn't do any worse that we
have, and think what the entrepreneurs might do with the twelve
billion dollars currently being planned for OSP.
Edward Wright
>> Problem isn't capsule or lifting body. Problem is launch vehicle.
No
>> matter what they chose from the current inventory it's going to
cost to
>> much.
>
> Compared to what? The Shuttle's overhead costs are over $2.5 billion
> per year. If OSP can reduce the standing army such that OSP itself
> costs $100 million per flight, on top of the $150 million Delta IV-H,
> that would bring the ISS crew transport cost down to $500 million per
> year.
Except that ISS crew tours are three months, not six. So, double that.
$1 billion per year. That's on top of the Shuttle costs, which
continue, and all the R&D.
> That's money that can be put toward a reusable first stage to replace
> the Delta IV-H.
Except the money doesn't exist when you do the math correctly. Even if
it did, what would be the point? Develop a reusable first stage for a
vehicle that's going to fly maybe six times a year? Why? How long
should the taxpayers continue investing in a program that treats space
as though it were a circus stunt?
There are much better things we could do with the money.
Rand Simberg
Walsh <mp1w...@Adelphia.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>> >> Based on the costs they've already made public, this program is
>> >> insane.
>> >
>> >$2.4 billion makes it insane? How so?
>>
>> Where do you get 2.4 billion? The story I read said twelve billion,
>> and almost a decade.
>
>You mean you saw a lower figure that the 13 billion I saw?
>
>I also point out that this is 2003 and 2010 is measurably shorter
>than a decade.
I saw 2012 for full operations, which is close enough to "almost a
decade" for me.
Michael Kent
> On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 07:11:00 GMT, in a place far, far away,
> mic...@remove.this.syndicomm.com (Michael Kent) made the phosphor on
> my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
> Where do you get 2.4 billion? The story I read said twelve billion,
> and almost a decade.
From NASA. NASA has estimated OSP development cost at $2.4 billion with
some undetermined amount of additional money after that for vehicle
fabrication. This is an estimate very early in the program and should
be taken with a large grain of salt, but it's the only one NASA has
made.
The $12 billion figure comes from a Congressional staffer. There's no
telling what agenda said staffer has in making such statements, and I
don't put much faith in it. Before you jump all over NASA for spending
$12 billion to develop OSP, please make sure they actually plan to do
so.
I expect you to oppose OSP, but be honest about it, and do it for the
right reasons.
Mike
Michael Kent
> On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 07:33:05 GMT, in a place far, far away,
> mic...@remove.this.syndicomm.com (Michael Kent) made the phosphor on
> my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
> >If you read the article closely, "they" in this case are a couple of
> >Congressional staffers, not NASA. It's not even clear "they" know
> >what "they" are talking about, especially since at this point in
> >time NASA is playing its cards close to its chest.
> I don't know what article you read, but my criticism is based on the
> article from the Baltimore Sun, that cited Dennis Smith.
> http://www.sunspot.net/bal-te.spaceplane15feb15,0,3933146.story?coll=bal-home-headlines
> No mention of Congressional staffers.
And no mention of a NASA source for the $12 billion. In fact, the only
mention of $12 billion comes in the opening paragraph:
>> In the wake of the Columbia disaster, NASA officials say they're
>> accelerating plans to develop a $12 billion Orbital Space Plane
>> that would ferry astronauts to the International Space Station by
>> 2012 at a lower cost than the space shuttle can.
No other mention of $12 billion is made anywhere else in the article and
no quote -- direct or indirect -- from Dennis Smith mentions it.
Clearly this is the journalist's figure -- probably the highest figure
he could find -- in much the same vein as the $100 billion space station
or, my favorite, the $1.2 trillion missile defense system. Surely
you're aware of this journalistic tactic?
Another, more detailed, article describing the OSP:
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/ft_spaceplane_budget_021223.html
>> The agency so far has said it needs $2.4 billion, which it is getting
>> by shuffling money in its existing budget, for development costs
>> through 2007. That is not even close to the final price because it
>> doesn't include building the ships.
>> The ultimate total could be between $9 billion and $13 billion,
>> according to Congressional staffers and industry experts.
Here again we have the $2.4 billion NASA figure and another -- much
larger -- figure given by anonymous "Congressional staffers" and
"industry experts." No justification for a number very inconsistent
with NASA's number is given. Fabrication of four vehicles is 4-5 times
the development cost? That is so unlike any recent aerospace project
I'm aware of that it begs justification. Yet none is given.
At best we have a few ignoramuses quoting figures to the press and
figuring that OSP vehicles will cost $2-3 billion each because that's
what Shuttle orbiters cost. More likely said staffers and experts have
more sinister motives. Either way, I see no reason to believe them and
absolutely no reason to get worked up them.
Mike
Rand Simberg
Kent <mic...@remove.this.syndicomm.com> made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>> >$2.4 billion makes it insane? How so?
>
>> Where do you get 2.4 billion? The story I read said twelve billion,
>> and almost a decade.
>
>From NASA. NASA has estimated OSP development cost at $2.4 billion with
>some undetermined amount of additional money after that for vehicle
>fabrication. This is an estimate very early in the program and should
>be taken with a large grain of salt, but it's the only one NASA has
>made.
>
>The $12 billion figure comes from a Congressional staffer.
Then you'd better tell the Baltimore Sun. The article cited implies
that the number came from Dennis Smith. Shouldn't PAO be trying to
correct the record?
>I expect you to oppose OSP, but be honest about it, and do it for the
>right reasons.
I've done nothing dishonest. I only know what I read in the
newspapers.
BTW, what would "the right reasons" be?
Henry Spencer
George William Herbert <gher...@gw.retro.com> wrote:
>1) Vehicle margins versus reliability is a reasonably well known
However, there are other factors in the tradeoff too. Most notably, the
need for large margins against uncertainty can be much reduced if both the
design and the individual articles are 100% testable, and fault-tolerant
enough to survive surprises during testing. The way to reduce uncertainty
is by adding information!
A good part of the reliability problem with today's launchers is that
their designers have been locked into a vicious circle of really stupid
design practices. The answer to this is not greater margins to diminish
the potential impact of stupidity, but putting in less stupidity in the
first place.
"The human race has never done anything as stupid as we've done in space."
-- Max Hunter
Michael Walsh
Rand Simberg wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 23:48:07 GMT, in a place far, far away, Michael
> Walsh <mp1w...@Adelphia.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
> such a way as to indicate that:
>
> >OK. The problem is that predicted launch costs for manned vehicles
> >by commercial entrepeneurs are drastically lower than both estimated
> >and actual costs of government developed launch systems.
> >
> >Either the government is vastly overspending during the development
> >of launch systems or the entrepeneurs are drastically underestimating
> >the real costs of developing a manned reusable launch vehicle.
> >
> >The rub is that both of these things could be true.
>
> Yes, but given the appalling performance of the government to date,
> and the huge disparity betweent the estimates, it might not be a bad
> expenditure to put it to the test. We couldn't do any worse that we
> have, and think what the entrepreneurs might do with the twelve
> billion dollars currently being planned for OSP.
Spend it on vacations?
OK, just a flip remark, but expect more questions if $12 billion
gets handed to entrepeneurs than when it is delivered to a
government agency.
And I am not even expressing a value judgment on this,
just commenting.
Mike Walsh
Allen Thomson
> >So "100 times safer" could be interpreted as a goal of 99.99%,
> >or 0.01% probability of loss per launch. IMHO, there's absolutely
> >no indication that rockets can be made that reliable,
>
> There's no question in my mind that they can be. It may be that
> expendable rockets can't, but not rockets per se. There's nothing
> intrinsically unreliable about a rocket.
OK, I can perhaps imagine a rocket-powered vehicle that could deliver
a payload to LEO and have 99.99% reliability. But that vehicle seems,
to my pore ole brain, to be quite a bit different from anything that
has been built yet. And it would have to make several trade-offs much
differently than anything that has gone into space as yet. Operating
on the safe side implies, in most cases, beefing up structure, backing
off operating margins, etc.
What, actually, are we talking about, if the goal is to put a vehicle
capable of carrying 8 people up/down to the ISS with 99.99% chance
of success?
Rand Simberg
thom...@flash.net (Allen Thomson) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>> >So "100 times safer" could be interpreted as a goal of 99.99%,
>> >or 0.01% probability of loss per launch. IMHO, there's absolutely
>> >no indication that rockets can be made that reliable,
>>
>> There's no question in my mind that they can be. It may be that
>> expendable rockets can't, but not rockets per se. There's nothing
>> intrinsically unreliable about a rocket.
>
>
>OK, I can perhaps imagine a rocket-powered vehicle that could deliver
>a payload to LEO and have 99.99% reliability. But that vehicle seems,
>to my pore ole brain, to be quite a bit different from anything that
>has been built yet.
That's for sure.
>What, actually, are we talking about, if the goal is to put a vehicle
>capable of carrying 8 people up/down to the ISS with 99.99% chance
>of success?
A fully-reusable space transport. Probably multiple stage.
And the goal is not 99.99% chance of success--just a 99.99% chance of
getting the vehicle back safely, with passengers. They're two
different criteria.
Edward Wright
>>> And your reason for saying it's insane is...?
>>
>> "...the costs they've already made public..."
>>
>> What part of that did you not understand.
>
> Well, considering what you quoted, I don't understand any of it. Trimming quotes is usually
> a good idea, but you trimmed so much here that it doesn't make sense.
Okay, let me untrim it: Rand was saying OSP is insane because of the
cost figures that have been made public.
>>> People who have to actually make decisions (not just naysay them)
know
>>> that there's more to factor into a project for consideration than
just
>>> cost. Such as... alternatives!
>>
>> [People] who have to pay for alternatives know that every
alternative is
>> not worth the cost. You haven't presented anything to show that
>
> Are you trying to say that every alternative is not a good one?
> Couldn't you just have asked Merkle to specify some alternatives?
No, I am saying that not every alternative is worth paying for.
>> FYI, Rand used to be a program manager for space transportation at
>> Rockwell International, which built the Space Shuttle. Saying he
has
>> never had to make decisions seems a bit presumptuous.
>
> He never said that Rand never had to make decisions. He did say
> that people who make decisions have to take things other than cost
> into consideration.
By implication, because Rand (allegedly) doesn't, he must not be
someone has had to make decisions.
> OK, Ed. Just how much experience do you have in space transportation,
> in a decision-making role?
Just one purchasing decision for a small fleet.
> Most of the engineers working on large aerospace projects are not
> project managers. They do honest technical worker and usually supply
> recommendations and technical analysis to manager and if the manager
> is a good one he will be in on the design decision. Quite frequently
> the engineer gets over-ruled because of overall considerations.
> If the manager is good, he will explain the reasons for the decision
> and the engineer will go back to do his best to implement the selected
> design.
Is this in any way relevant to the conversation?
>>> As in so far the commercial market hasn't provided any,
>>
>> Why should the commercial market provide the government with
something
>> the government clearly isn't [interested] in buying?
>
> That doesn't make much sense, you probably mean't isn't interested in buying.
Yes.
> It is the old problem that is hard to sell something non-existent to a customer.
Nonsense. The government has a standard purchase category -- IDIQ
procurements -- for just that purpose.
I could also point out that OSP is non-existant. That hasn't stopped
NASA from trying to sell it to Congress.
> Perhaps if it was developed there would be a market for it.
Irrelevant, as long as NASA continues to do everything in its power to
prevent such vehicles from being developed.
>> All the evidence suggests otherwise. If NASA were willing to get
out
>> of the launch business, it would be putting out requests for
>> commercial bids right now.
>
> Commercial bids for what?
For the services that OSP is allegedly going to provide.
> I assume this is the old argument of contract for services.
> I assume you would scream equally hard if
> a government customer, as normal customers do, set some precise
> qualifications for the desired service.
There is nothing precise in the OSP Level I Requirements. If NASA can
fund the development of an Orbital Space Plane that meets those simple
requirements, why couldn't it contract for services from a vehicle
that meets the same requirements?
>> Of course, the law already says NASA is supposed to get out of the
>> launch business. Why should "alternatives" take priority over
obeying
>> the law?
>
> NASA is supposed to buy commercial launches when they are available.
> They don't have to procure non-existent items.
No, and a child doesn't have to clean his room, either. That doesn't
mean he should be rewarded for misbehavior. If NASA doesn't want to
use the means, such as IDIQ, that Congress has provided for it,
Congress ought to let NASA sit in the corner and pout.
>> FYI, Congress saw fit to pass the Launch Services Purchase Act.
NASA
>> simply ignores the law.
>
> They seem to be following it in considerable detail. They do buy
> their launches from private contractors.
Once again, you fail to understand the difference between a "private
[sic] contractor" and a "commercial launch provider." Considering how
many times I have explained it to you, I begin to suspect that failure
might be deliberate.
Tom Merkle
> > Put together a company that makes an expendable (or
> > launch business. Till then, whine all you want, NASA will keep
> > spending the money as they and Congress see fit.
>
> a company has been made quite hard...
>
> -kert
I suggest you ask any investor who invested his money unwisely what
made his investment fail. You will rarely hear in response, "I
invested unwisely."
Beal himself admitted (at the same conference in which he fingered
NASA) that the reason he was stopping work was because the changing
launch market made his return on investment too low. If you'll
remember, the only real difference between Beal's rockets and the ones
made by LockmartBoeing was that he planned to spend tens of millions
trying out composite construction. When Iridium flopped spectacularly,
he read the writing on the wall and pulled out before he lost his
fortune.
Tom Merkle
Tom Merkle
>
> >People who have to actually make decisions (not just naysay them) know
> >that there's more to factor into a project for consideration than just
> >hasn't provided any, unless you count the Soyuz as commercial, or as
> >an alternative to OSP....
>
> It's never been incentivized to. Just the opposite, in fact. Private
incentivized?
> industry knows what happens to people who attempt anything that might
> compete with NASA's space industrial complex. Just ask the people who
Rocko says: They like to got dealt with. Heh, heh.
> tried to do ISF.
>
> >Put together a company that makes an expendable (or
> >reusable--whatever) manned space vehicle, and NASA will get out of the
> >launch business.
>
> Do you really believe that?
Unswervingly.
Of course, the beautiful thing about your conspiracy theory contention
that it's a problem of 'incentive' is that it's utterly disproveable,
even in thought-experiment form.
Do you know why they don't have an Aids vaccine yet? Because the
incentives aren't there. If they have a vaccine, Aids will be wiped
out and then where will all those research dollars go? Do you know why
they don't have a 100 MPG carbuerator? Because Detroit is in league
with the oil companies, of course! Do you know why they haven't
figured out how to turn lead into gold yet? Because the incentive
isn't there. You get the idea. It requires a belief that hundreds of
thousands of hardworking people are in league but for no other purpose
than to spend large amounts of government money to a pointless end.
I have a slightly less pessimistic view of the people and everyday
citizens who work in the aerospace industry. They are drawn from the
same stock as every red-blooded entrepeneur to risk their personal
success, and of every farmer who sows slightly more than he can afford
in hopes of reaping the harvest in full. They all want the same thing,
oddly, that you do--to go into space. I, for one, have faith that they
are doing good towards that end.
Tom Merkle
Tom Merkle
Of course this is also unproveable, once again, until an independant
company actually develops a manned orbital vehicle.
Tom Merkle
Tom Merkle
> merk...@msn.com (Tom Merkle) wrote in message news:<c1d524e3.03021...@posting.google.com>...
>
> > In fact, who cares about satellites!
>
> Mostly DoD, NOAA, and communications companies. None of them depend on
> NASA launch vehicles. Orbital Space Plane has nothing to do with
> satellites.
satellites were mentioned as an extension of chain (a rhetorical
devie), not as a justification for OSP.
>
> > Let's go back to the stone age and hunt piggies!
> > WHOOOO HOOOOO
>
> If you can't imagine any alternative besides a government monopoly
> with trivial flight rates and hunting pigs, that's your problem.
>
Oh, I can imagine lots of things. But what I can't do is find a
reasoned justification for killing OSP. There are lots of arguments
against it, but not so many arguments in favor of anything else--which
leads me to believe that those who argue against it have an agenda.
That has more to do with wanting to direct money towards their 'pet'
ideas instead of towards OSP. Since these projects can't directly
stand up to OSP on a risk/cost/benefit basis, the people who favor
these other projects never say what they have in mind INSTEAD of OSP.
They just sling arrows OSP's way, hoping to benefit from the fallout.
>
> People have proposed plenty of alternatives. You don't like those
> alternatives? That's your problem, but it doesn't mean there are no
> alternatives.
A simple thing for you to do at this point in the email would have
been to list some alternatives to OSP, unless you were afraid they
won't stand up to scrutiny...
>
> > I mean, it's not smart to kill the cow until you find another source
> > of milk...
>
> The problem is, we aren't getting milk from the cow. The "cow"
> produces only a few drops per year, and they are consumed entirely by
> the people at NASA who are in charge of milking the cow.
>
> All of your arguments seem to be based on the old paradigm, with its
> false dichotomy between a miniscule Manned Space Program and the end
> of all human spaceflight. In reality, those two choices are roughly
> equivalent. The difference between six space flights per year and zero
> is mere rounding error. The real choice is between the current program
> with its trivial flight rates and a robust, vital space transportation
> industry with millions of passengers.
Why is this a choice? What kind of sense does that make? You're making
a zero-sum game out of life, but life isn't like that. The difference
between the current six flights a year and the millions of passengers,
in reality, is only a matter of time. No matter how hard you want to
leapfrog the development cycle, it's impossible to do. Time is
constant relative to us. Building on technology takes time no matter
how bad you want to be using warp speed tomorrow. Chopping down the
giants whose shoulders you want to stand on doesn't make you any
taller either, it just exposes your insecurities.
The fact that you equate six flights a year to zero makes it obvious
that your frustration with not living in the Star Trek universe has
clouded your vision. I for one find it amazing that we have been able
to maintain any space program at all, considering the fact that we
continually cut the percentage of money we spend on it.
Tom Merkle
P.S. In a digital world the difference between zero and six is more
than a rounding error... it's three digits.
Glen
> NASA) that the reason he was stopping work was because the changing
> launch market made his return on investment too low. If you'll
> remember, the only real difference between Beal's rockets and the ones
> made by LockmartBoeing was that he planned to spend tens of millions
> trying out composite construction. When Iridium flopped spectacularly,
> he read the writing on the wall and pulled out before he lost his
> fortune.
Let us not forget NASA's role in discouraging commercial space. When
General Dynamics sought a license to sell Atlas launches commercially in the
1980's, NASA dithered to create business for the space shuttle. Boeing's
own Sea Launch supposedly goes to the equator for the extra boost, but in
reality achieves lower costs by first travelling outside NASA jurisdiction.
NASA itself has no interest in less expensive systems because no bureaucrat
ever acquired more power through a smaller program. NASA has threatened
contractors with denial of future contracts if they continued work on cheap
ways to get into space, including the million pound thrust engine TRW built
in the late 1970's for about $40K (as in thousands). In my experience
NASA's hostility towards commercial space is the primary reason we have no
commercial boosters other than recycled ICBM and IRBM designs, and why we
have no commercial space plane.
There is no mystery about a space plane. We have the materials. We have
the technology. My momma worked on a space plane in the 1960s. called the
X15. I worked on studies for the USAF Manned Sortie Vehicle, and I know
engineers that worked on DynaSoar. If you want a space plane, remove NASA
from the picture.
NASA now has conflicting roles as manned taxi driver, heavy lift provider
and space exploration agency. We may be better served splitting NASA into
separate agencies responsible for commercial development and regulation of
space activities, space exploration, and manned space flight exploration.
Perhaps we could semi-privatize the taxi business. Offer a limited
monopoly, like the early telephone monopolies, to companies to provide
regulated service to and from orbit.
Glen
Tom Merkle
> Rand Simberg <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote:
> >thom...@flash.net (Allen Thomson) glowed:
> >>So "100 times safer" could be interpreted as a goal of 99.99%,
> >>or 0.01% probability of loss per launch. IMHO, there's absolutely
> >>no indication that rockets can be made that reliable,
> >
> >There's no question in my mind that they can be. It may be that
> >expendable rockets can't, but not rockets per se. There's nothing
> >intrinsically unreliable about a rocket.
>
> the same general order of reliability as airliners are,
> eventually.
>
> When rocketplanes are built with airliner-like margins,
> with airliner-like redundancy, with airliner-like
> fleet operating experience, etc.
>
> The number of hard lessons, decades of operation, etc.
> that it took airliners to get to the point that ETOPS
> was a reasonable concept should never be ignored.
>
> While Rand's end goal is reasonable, I don't see any
> legitimacy to claiming it is feasible in the nearterm
> even if we go to completely reusable, properly margined
> RLVs starting immediately. A true improvement of an order
> of magnitude in safety and reliablity per decade is a
> reasonable rate of progress. Telling the public we can
> do more is probably irresponsible. There are still far
> too many unknowns, and the economic / payload mass pressures
> pushing margins down are so much worse in space access
> compared to air vehicles.
>
>
> -george william herbert
> gher...@retro.com
Hear, hear.
The problem with this kind of reasonable development scheme, however,
it that it doesn't mesh with many people's fantasies, (especially you
reading this), which you probably know from frequenting these boards.
Unfortunately, most in congress can't distinguish the dreamers from
the schemers...
Tom Merkle
Tom Merkle
> Rand Simberg <simberg.i...@org.trash> wrote:
> >I'm not sure why it's "irresponsible" to claim two orders, but not
> >one. We have little data for either claim right now. You may be
> >right, but I may be as well, and I don't think that either of us are
> >being irresponsible to hold or proclaim our opinions.
>
> Two points:
>
> 1) Vehicle margins versus reliability is a reasonably well known
> did not have 2 order of magnitude reliability improvement
> better margins. Feel free to correct this, if necessary
> under NDA, if you have contrary evidence.
>
> 2) There are sufficient operational, vehicle design,
> material aging, vehicle inspection interval, human factor
> and environment gotchas left to discover the hard way
> that the "unknown / unpredictable failure" component
> of real reliablity / risk is unlikely to drop as
> fast as you are predicting. Your own comments about
> (very legitimately) fearing the previously unpredicted
> possibility of a mesopheric atmospheric electrical
> incident contribution to Columbia's loss show one corner
> of this problem. We simply don't have enough experience
> in space to be sure we understand it completely.
> We certainly don't have enough experience with
> vehicles we haven't built yet to be sure that we
> understand them completely, or that when we build
> them they will turn out to have all the margins and
> safety we intended them to.
>
>
> -george william herbert
> gher...@retro.com
Thus follows Herbert's Law:
"Any space vehicle program that attempts to improve performance,
safety, or reliability by greater than one order of magnitude per
decade is bound to fail..."
So stated.
How about Tumlinson's Law?
Any vehicle development program started by NASA is bound to be
cancelled without producing a working vehicle.
Or Simberg's Corollary?
Any vehicle development program started by NASA is bound to have the
wrong incentives to succeed, and thus will fail.
And, of course, no statement of laws would be complete without the
Elifritz Theorem:
All vehicle designs that do not involve cryogenic Hydrogen-Oxygen
SSTOs are unworthy of further discussion, and increase the average
global temperature by merely being discussed...
Tom Merkle
Tom Merkle
> On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 07:19:53 GMT, in a place far, far away,
> mic...@remove.this.syndicomm.com (Michael Kent) made the phosphor on
> my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>
> >Station.
> >
> >
> >the Station crew to be increased to six or seven.
> >
> >Space Shuttle to operate.
>
>
> >5) It does not require radical new technology to develop.
> >
> >will further reduce launch costs and increase launch availability.
> >
> >aimed at NASA's requirements only. USAF and the commercial companies
> >are on their own (which is where they should be).
>
> with OSP.
>
> That twelve billion would be much better spent on low-cost access.
For Pete's sake say something specific.
Quit hiding behind "low cost access!" Stand up and face your arguments
like a man!
Here, I'll get you started. "That twelve billion could be much better
spent by... [insert non-generality]"
Tom Merkle
I aim to be a gadfly.
Tom Merkle
> On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 17:23:04 GMT, in a place far, far away,
> he...@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer) made the phosphor on my monitor
> glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>
> >only about $100M. It's the roughly-fixed overheads that make the shuttle
> >look costly. Unless you can eliminate the shuttle entirely, OSP does not
> >seem to be a very good deal.
>
> Probably not even then, when you take development costs into account.
>
> The real problem with OSP is the underlying assumption--that we have
> to continue down the flawed path we started in 1973, that has us
> spending billions for little value, and that it is not possible to
> develop low-cost, routine-access, high-flight-rate vehicles.
The underlying assumption of OSP is that we have to continue down the
path of applied physical realities, and that no amount of further
wishing is going to exempt the space program from natural law,
including Herbert's Law: that any vehicle development program
attempting to improve performance multiple orders of magnitude during
development will fail.
The real problem with NASA, and the tech community as a whole, is that
recent advances in computers and information technology have convinced
us all that we can somehow leapfrog the incremental accumulation of
knowledge, simply because we wish to. A false hope in every dimension.
Computers still cannot take the perspiration out of innovation.
Tom Merkle
Rand Simberg
merk...@msn.com (Tom Merkle) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>> >People who have to actually make decisions (not just naysay them) know
>> >that there's more to factor into a project for consideration than just
>> >cost. Such as... alternatives! As in so far the commercial market
>> >hasn't provided any, unless you count the Soyuz as commercial, or as
>> >an alternative to OSP....
>>
>> It's never been incentivized to. Just the opposite, in fact. Private
>
>incentivized?
Yes, incentivized. You know, provided with incentives?
>> industry knows what happens to people who attempt anything that might
>> compete with NASA's space industrial complex. Just ask the people who
>
>Rocko says: They like to got dealt with. Heh, heh.
>
>> tried to do ISF.
>>
>> >Put together a company that makes an expendable (or
>> >reusable--whatever) manned space vehicle, and NASA will get out of the
>> >launch business.
>>
>> Do you really believe that?
>
>Unswervingly.
>
>Of course, the beautiful thing about your conspiracy theory
I don't believe in conspiracies. NASA (or any other government
bureucracy is not competent to carry one out.
<rest of confusion snipped>
Rand Simberg
merk...@msn.com (Tom Merkle) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>> The real problem with OSP is the underlying assumption--that we have
>> to continue down the flawed path we started in 1973, that has us
>> spending billions for little value, and that it is not possible to
>> develop low-cost, routine-access, high-flight-rate vehicles.
>
>The underlying assumption of OSP is that we have to continue down the
>path of applied physical realities
There are not physical realities preventing us from low-cost access.
It's a political and institutional problem, not a physics problem.
Thomas Lee Elifritz
merk...@msn.com (Tom Merkle) wrote in message :
> Elifritz Theorem:
> All vehicle designs that do not involve cryogenic Hydrogen-Oxygen
> SSTOs are unworthy of further discussion, and increase the average
> global temperature by merely being discussed...
You forgot Merkle's hypothesis :
Fire good, electricity bad.
Thomas Lee Elifritz
http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net
Henry Spencer
Glen <nogar...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>...Sea Launch supposedly goes to the equator for the extra boost, but in
>reality achieves lower costs by first travelling outside NASA jurisdiction.
Let's be accurate here. NASA has no "jurisdiction", it's not a regulatory
agency. (There were times in the past when it tried to behave like one,
but that was quite a while ago.) Its unofficial hostility to commercial
space activity does not recognize national boundaries.
And Sea Launch does *not* get outside FAA jurisdiction by going to the
equator; the US government believes it has jurisdiction over the doings of
US citizens and US corporations everywhere.
What Sea Launch does evade is the USAF launch-range bureaucracy. Which
is no small advantage.
It also benefits, on the FAA front, from launching from the middle of a
lot of empty ocean, with no innocent bystanders nearby.