Comments on Rocketpunk Manifesto: Whose Space Futures?

Myself, I beleive whole heartedly in the essential...

2011-12-22T07:14:15.879-08:00

Myself, I beleive whole heartedly in the essential necessity of colonising space, or atleast being able to obtain its resources;the only reason to find out about it is to better utilize it, whether this is possible in the 'mid-future' is debatable. As an Australian however, I'm not so sure, we're well known for our over-the-top rampant mine 'n sell ways, but at the same time there seems to be a sullen lack of enthusiasm to DO anything in space. Sure, we had our time in the limelight, hosting some pretty sick telescopes and the like, with another large array being constructed in the wilderness of WA. We love space, but just don't seem to want to GO there anytime soon, or just genuinely can't be bothered.

As an expat living in Dubai however, I can say that that often underestimated motive of 'cause I can' can drive people to do some spectacular things. In the past few years of my stay here, I've seen the Burj Khalifa rise, despite ridiculous over-budget costs and a complete lack of clients, and OTT shows that no doubt cost more than they're worth. The UAE also seems to be interested in space, having only been around for a few decades, the country has invested in companies such as 'Virgin Galactic', and are busy designing their own satellites. I remember even reading somewhere about talk of a commercial 'space port' being planned for Abu Dhabi, although with the downturn I'm not so sure anymore.

Very clever! The sadder truth is the dive bombing...

2011-12-13T20:05:35.534-08:00

Very clever!

The sadder truth is the dive bombing requirement was set by the RLM (Reichsluftfahrtministerium), and applied uncritically to every bomber design including medium bombers like the JU-88 and heavy bombers like the HE-177 (which was similar in size to a B-24).

You don't need mad dictators when you can have clueless bureaucrats!

D!ckhead. :-P

2011-12-13T14:08:21.945-08:00

D!ckhead. :-P

Sigh. Just in case you're being serious, &...

2011-12-13T14:01:54.232-08:00

Sigh. Just in case you're being serious, "You Know Who" was an oblique reference to a historical character, not to a literary one.

Ok. What would Saint Francis of Assisi need with a bomber?

jollyreaper: "What would a dark wizard n...

2011-12-13T13:55:37.982-08:00
jollyreaper:

"What would a dark wizard need with a bomber?"

Sigh. Just in case you're being serious, "You Know Who" was an oblique reference to a historical character, not to a literary one.

In any case, I'm primarily posting to note that Paul Allen topday announced a semi-realistic, partly-reusable launch vehicle. It involes a large carrier aircraft lifting an expendable two-stage LV to altitude for launch, much like Orbital Science's Pegasus. Except the Allen project will involve what appears to be a cut-down Space-X Falcon with a Dragon capsule. Go to http://stratolaunchsystems.com/ for details.

I think it's more rationally explained as m...

2011-12-13T12:42:49.084-08:00
I think it's more rationally explained as managerial fiat diverting organizational resources in unprofitable directions, kind of like You Know Who insisting that all bombers have dive bombing capabilities.

What would a dark wizard need with a bomber?

Thucydides: "Looking at the SpaceX site&#...

2011-12-13T09:11:17.418-08:00
Thucydides:

"Looking at the SpaceX site's blurbs on reusability, I first thought they had lost their marbles; this isn't even remotely possible with any current technology, nor are the vehicles of a form factor that would make VTOL easy (short squat cylinders would feel less stress and be less inclined to buckle under the stress).

It occurs to me there is an element of misinformation here, to flummox their competitors. The real R&D objective may simply to make their vehicles much more rugged and reliable, opening up a wider range of launch windows and payload options. My .02 anyway."

I think it's more rationally explained as managerial fiat diverting organizational resources in unprofitable directions, kind of like You Know Who insisting that all bombers have dive bombing capabilities.

Looking at the SpaceX site's blurbs on reusabi...

2011-12-13T06:23:16.625-08:00
Looking at the SpaceX site's blurbs on reusability, I first thought they had lost their marbles; this isn't even remotely possible with any current technology, nor are the vehicles of a form factor that would make VTOL easy (short squat cylinders would feel less stress and be less inclined to buckle under the stress).

It occurs to me there is an element of misinformation here, to flummox their competitors. The real R&D objective may simply to make their vehicles much more rugged and reliable, opening up a wider range of launch windows and payload options. My .02 anyway.

Ferrell: First you have to have the technology to...

2011-12-09T10:19:23.599-08:00
Ferrell:

First you have to have the technology to do it. I'm firmly with John Shannon on this one: reusability is a myth. When it ceases to be a myth, then I would agree that that is a viable model.

WRT the reusability mythology and the real world, in the real world the Soviets/Russians, who know a lot more about this than we do -- in the same way that a chauffer knows more about cars than his boss, who only drives when he takes his roadster out on weekends -- never even considered reusability when they were launching 30+ Soyuz and 10+ proton a year. They only developed Buran as a keeping up with the Joneses project, and then only because they had a (sometimes highly unjustified) inferiority complex WRT the US. I find that significant.

Rick, Thank-you! Tony, how about this for a busin...

2011-12-08T17:54:50.508-08:00
Rick, Thank-you!

Tony, how about this for a business model; build a very few reusable surface to orbit vehicles (that unlike the shuttle, do have a 30 day turn-around), a lean support and mission control structure, and run the business like Fedex; don't care what you're hauling, you just haul it. A regular schedule, (and with even just marginally cheaper rates), I think you might make a go of it. Like you said, think of it as a trucking or airline company, rather than a car company. Yellow Cab to orbit, instead of U-Haul.

Ferrell

Done!

2011-12-07T20:34:32.563-08:00
Done!

Rick, please delete the duplicate post; thank you....

2011-12-05T18:25:08.835-08:00
Rick, please delete the duplicate post; thank you.

Ferrell

Tony said:"You're thinking at the wrong s...

2011-12-05T18:23:53.790-08:00
Tony said:"You're thinking at the wrong scale. Space launch is a transportation service. The spacecraft operator wants a spacecraft on-orbit. Getting it there is important, obviously, but the operator doesn't want to get involved in that business. So it's much more like airlines, railroads, and shipping than it is like private cars or even delivery trucks. Let the service provider worry about hardware and the details of its operation; I, as the spacecraft operator, just want to get the thing in space."

Hmmm...I'll have to think about that; thanks, Tony.

Ferrell

Ferrell: "Maybe that's the model we s...

2011-12-05T08:31:14.873-08:00
Ferrell:

"Maybe that's the model we should strive for; the automotive industry's high volume-standardized design type of business that sells vehicles instead of mission enablers."

You're thinking at the wrong scale. Space launch is a transportation service. The spacecraft operator wants a spacecraft on-orbit. Getting it there is important, obviously, but the operator doesn't want to get involved in that business. So it's much more like airlines, railroads, and shipping than it is like private cars or even delivery trucks. Let the service provider worry about hardware and the details of its operation; I, as the spacecraft operator, just want to get the thing in space.

High volume only works if there are lots of custom...

2011-12-04T22:14:44.622-08:00
High volume only works if there are lots of customers...

SSTO was a way to get around this by using the same spacecraft multiple times, but we all know how that has worked so far (or is likely to work for the foreseeable future, barring unexpected developments in materials science or engine technology).

The only other practical ways to bring costs down would be to figure out how to lower the R&D and hardware costs of the actual space vehicles, rovers etc. and drastically reduce the manning needed to prepare and supervise space vehicles and missions (Jerry Pournelle once pointed out that airlines used an average of @ 100 people/airplane, and that included ticket agents...compare that to the vast standing army required for the Space Shuttle).

Maybe that's the model we should strive for; t...

2011-12-04T11:29:42.305-08:00
Maybe that's the model we should strive for; the automotive industry's high volume-standardized design type of business that sells vehicles instead of mission enablers.

Ferrell

The X-33 is a case in point here: a test of whethe...

2011-12-03T18:50:56.198-08:00
The X-33 is a case in point here: a test of whether a radically different approach would pay off - and it didn't.

The basic problem, as Tony notes, is that space technology is extremely expensive. And at our techlevel this cost is intrinsic. It is more like medical technology than stamping out cars - clean rooms, that sort of thing.

Throw in minimal production runs and a huge amount of development and prototyping, and you have ideal conditions for high costs.

Skylon is an update of a dream proposed back in th...

2011-12-02T21:45:10.961-08:00
Skylon is an update of a dream proposed back in the late '40s, early 50's for an Aerospace plane. The USAF put a lot of money into a concept called LACE (Liquid Air Cycle Engine) which liquified incoming air, extracted the O2 and used that in combustion with the LH2 fuel.

The ungodly mass of tanks, plumbing and compressors would have been a huge nightmare to operate on a day to day basis, but some test engines were indeed made and bench tested. Considering that a half century has passed (OK 30 years if you count HOTOL) before any workable new hardware could be made should give you a pause.

Using Skylon type technology to cool incoming air seems to have more promise for high performance jets, USAF and the RAF might be interested in long range bombers, UCAVs and cruise missiles powered by this sort of engine. The utility for space launch would be in combining a high performance jet mother plane (using a Skylon type engine) to launch a SpaceShip Two type space vehicle.

My take anyway.

Sean: "I honestly can't imagine a mul...

2011-12-02T09:06:40.449-08:00
Sean:

"I honestly can't imagine a multi-billion dollar company such as Lockheed Martin investing in philosophy. Obviously when they went about designing the X-33 they felt that there was a profit to made in such a vehicle."

Thucydides:

"WRT the X-33, it was a cost plus contract which was also constantly renegotiated as benchmarks moved and deadlines were missed.

I don't think LockMart was in much danger of losing money..."

LockMart did put almost $400M of their own money into it. But otherwise, yes, they were guaranteed a return on the government portion of the financing.

What they found out though is that there's no magic to shortcut basic physics. The composite tankage was lighter per cubic inch, but they had to add a lot more cubic inches of it than they had originally planned, in order to make it strong enough to work. The rocket engines made the craft way tail heavy, so they had to add mass to the nose in order for it to fly at all, much les stabilly. And then there's the fundamental problem of building a machine that has to perform in two entirely different dynamic environments, with the gravity gradient enforced at entriely different angles in each one.

Now, looking at the Skylon conceptual designs, it seems like they've though all of that through, including tankage much closer to cylinders in shape, placing the engines at the apparent center of mass, and requiring the vehicle to manage the gravity gradient through only one axis. But I'm still skeptical that they'll make their crown jewel, the Sabre engine, work in practice. If they do, I'll be the first to congratulate them.

Ferrell: "Tony, when you were in the sevi...

2011-12-02T08:41:21.871-08:00
Ferrell:

"Tony, when you were in the sevice, were you in charge of the anti-aircraft battery? 'Cuz you're really good at shooting things down..."

Just a grunt, specialized in machine guns. But that does have an element of properly identifying and effectively engaging the target.

And my objective is not to shoot things down for the sake of shooting things down. My objective is to inject an appreciation of the real state of the art and the real potential for change in it.

WRT the X-33, it was a cost plus contract which wa...

2011-12-01T21:04:11.995-08:00
WRT the X-33, it was a cost plus contract which was also constantly renegotiated as benchmarks moved and deadlines were missed.

I don't think LockMart was in much danger of losing money...

Tony said: "People invest millions in Kis...

2011-12-01T20:10:15.082-08:00
Tony said: "People invest millions in Kistler, and Rotary Rocket too. The SSTO industry is selling a philosophical position as if it were engineering. John Shannon is stating engineering facts, damn the philosophy."

I honestly can't imagine a multi-billion dollar company such as Lockheed Martin investing in philosophy. Obviously when they went about designing the X-33 they felt that there was a profit to made in such a vehicle.

Rick, blogger glitched (or my finger twitched), so...

2011-12-01T18:24:49.372-08:00
Rick, blogger glitched (or my finger twitched), so could you remove the duplicate post for me? Thanks and sorry.

Ferrell

Tony, when you were in the sevice, were you in cha...

2011-12-01T18:22:13.924-08:00
Tony, when you were in the sevice, were you in charge of the anti-aircraft battery? 'Cuz you're really good at shooting things down...

Ferrell

Sean: "There are many authorities who wou...

2011-12-01T15:59:39.239-08:00
Sean:

"There are many authorities who would argue with Shannon's words regarding spacecraft re-usability, namely the engineers of Reaction Engines Limited who so far have millions, and potentially billions, on the line in their bid to prove that a claim such as Shannon's is incorrect."

People invest millions in Kistler, and Rotary Rocket too. The SSTO industry is selling a philosophical position as if it were engineering. John Shannon is stating engineering facts, damn the philosophy.

Comments on Rocketpunk Manifesto: Whose Space Futures?

Myself, I beleive whole heartedly in the essential...

Very clever! The sadder truth is the dive bombing...

D!ckhead. :-P

Sigh. Just in case you're being serious, &...

jollyreaper: "What would a dark wizard n...

I think it's more rationally explained as m...

Thucydides: "Looking at the SpaceX site&#...

Looking at the SpaceX site's blurbs on reusabi...

Ferrell: First you have to have the technology to...

Rick, Thank-you! Tony, how about this for a busin...

Done!

Rick, please delete the duplicate post; thank you....

Tony said:"You're thinking at the wrong s...

Ferrell: "Maybe that's the model we s...

High volume only works if there are lots of custom...

Maybe that's the model we should strive for; t...

The X-33 is a case in point here: a test of whethe...

Skylon is an update of a dream proposed back in th...

Sean: "I honestly can't imagine a mul...

Ferrell: "Tony, when you were in the sevi...

WRT the X-33, it was a cost plus contract which wa...

Tony said: "People invest millions in Kis...

Rick, blogger glitched (or my finger twitched), so...

Tony, when you were in the sevice, were you in cha...

Sean: "There are many authorities who wou...