I have an editorial up at Launch Space today. Unfortunately, there is no permalink. It’s at the top right now, but in the future, you’ll have to scroll down to the December 12th entry.
14 thoughts on “Year Of The Dragon”
Comments are closed.
I have an editorial up at Launch Space today. Unfortunately, there is no permalink. It’s at the top right now, but in the future, you’ll have to scroll down to the December 12th entry.
Comments are closed.
While I would hope that the Apollo paradigm is finally dead, I think there’s a lot of Congressional Monty Python fans who would like to claim “it’s not dead…it’s just pining”… Never underestimate the power of inertia and zombie-like obsession to dead ideas.
~Jon
One reason it’s hard to kill the Apollo paradigm is that it was a successful example of a massively big government program that met a tough technological challenge in a short amount of time (the Manhattan Project is another example). One reason Apollo was successful is that the government threw massive amounts of money at the problem and accepted NASA’s unofficial motto of “waste anything but time.” Those who are in favor of massive government approaches to problems see Apollo as a success story of what big government can accomplish. They can’t seem to recognize that there can be other, more cost effective ways to accomplish the same goals. Nor do they seem to realize that there are some problems that don’t lend themselves to quick solutions, e.g. “The War on Cancer” or “The War on Drugs.” Their approach is to throw money at a problem, any problem when some things just aren’t easily solvable. Throw in that mindset and the political benefits of channeling pork to their districts and you have some people who will never get it.
In my mind one of the worst “throw money at the problem” situations is grade school. You’d think teachers were eating dog food to survive. In reality, they get paid very well and there are more levels of administration that never existed when I was a kid. Even that wouldn’t be so bad if kids were actually being educated. On top of that you’ve got a federal department of education with funding looking like the trajectory of a falcon rocket.
Oh congressman, looking for something to cut?
The Dragon flight was a very impressive achievement – SpaceX got a lot of things right. Until we know more, however, that brief flash of flame from the end of the Dragon umbilical was worrisome. I’d like to see that investigated until I’m willing to call it “flawless.”
Apollo was a success in getting men to the Moon for the first time within a certain time frame. What it didn’t do was establish a low-cost infrastructure for the further exploitation and colonization of space or, of course, even a high-cost infrastructure for doing those things.
The legacy of Apollo is that we know we can go to the Moon. Unfortunately, we also know from what followed that the government boondoggle NASA mostly became during and after Apollo has firmly institutionalized the idea of spending hundreds of billions of dollars piddling about in LEO–like that’s worth anything much.
Some people (not you, Paul; I’m thinking of some particular wise-ass oldtimers at another site) are fixating on this fire as if it’s a gigantic problem. My guess is SpaceX has already analyzed and corrected it.
My guess is SpaceX has already analyzed and corrected it.
Given their track record at identifying and solving problems, I’d say you’re almost certainly right. Take what happened last week. According to an article I read, SpaceX found a potentially worrisome crack in a non-critical portion of the second stage expansion nozzle. They identified the issue, flew out a skilled machinist (who incidentally doesn’t like to fly), and he removed the bad area with some tin snips. Brilliant! They’ve also modified future systems to prevent the problem from recurring.
I read that SpaceX said the fire was due to slow closure of a valve in the umbilical line and they would fix it. I can’t remember where I read that.
The half-century-old paradigm of Apollo – a specific planetary goal, a gargantuan rocket, an unlimited budget – is finally dead. Replacing it is a more effective concept, for those who want to open up and develop the solar system, and not just send a few government-employee “explorers” at a cost of billions per flight – a robust and redundant space transportation infrastructure, with private competition and increasing activity driving down costs for all, and not just NASA.
I don’t think the part I have boldfaced is correct. As long as NASA exists and has a manned program, they will send government-employee explorers (no scare quotes) at billions of dollars a flight. However, what will change is the value received for those billions. Instead of spending it all just to get to low orbit, the LEO trip will be a fraction of the total cost, the rest being spent on much more capable missions – such as sending a fleet of three ships to an asteroid instead of one.
I read that SpaceX said the fire was due to slow closure of a valve in the umbilical line and they would fix it. I can’t remember where I read that.
I think Elon Musk said in the postflight press conference that it was a check valve that failed to close.
The Apollo program, wondrous and glorious as it truly was, worked because it achieved a simply stated (not simply accomplished) goal: by the end of the decade, to land a man on the moon and return him safely to earth.
It was a brilliant goal. I’ve been involved in setting requirements all my life, and it isn’t easy to get right the top-level requirement from which is derived all others needed to accomplish that requirement. JFK did that admirably.
If NASA wants to remain in business, we need to come up with a pithy requirement. It’s easy to state one that’s more difficult than JFK’s requirement
that (he continued) we land a man on the moon, etc. Have NASA, before the end of the decade, make it possible for anyone who wishes to purchase a ride be able to fly into LEO and return safely to the earth.
No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space; and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish.
Betcha can’t do it, NASA…
SpaceX found a potentially worrisome crack in a non-critical portion of the second stage expansion nozzle. They identified the issue, flew out a skilled machinist (who incidentally doesn’t like to fly), and he removed the bad area with some tin snips. Brilliant!
It really is rocket surgery!
If NASA wants to remain in business, we need to come up with a pithy requirement.
NASA already has the same pity requirement of all other government agencies – to continue to be funded.