In case anyone wondered why I haven’t commented (much) over there previously, and am probably not going to in the future, this thread is canonical. I can take the abuse, but that’s an hour or two of my life I won’t get back.
[Friday morning update]
Well, apparently I don’t have to worry about spending any more time over there — I seem to have been banned. I tried to respond to Jim’s latest nonsense, which was:
A orbital crewed rocket operating from US territory will have to meet all of NASA’s commercial crew guidelines or it won’t be allowed to launch. If SpaceX wants to launch from some other site, it can’t be stopped. It also will see its funding vaporize.
Also, don’t forget that, were there an accident on a non-NASA commercial crew rated launch, the launcher will be facing far more than civil fines, as will its leadership.
…and the comment didn’t show up. Fortunately, it wasn’t very long.
My response was something along the lines of “Jim, with all respect, you don’t know what you’re talking about. NASA has no authority to prevent a launch if it doesn’t affect NASA, and it has no “commercial guidelines.” Only the FAA determines whether or not a company gets a launch license, crewed or otherwise.”
This kind of ongoing and apparently irremediable ignorance is why I can’t take anything that Hillhouse writes seriously. He’s a perfect example of the old dictum about the problem not being what people don’t know, but what they know for damn sure, that is wrong.
[Mid-morning update]
Heh. Someone calling himself “Wolfgang Pauli” commented in response to Hillhouse’s nonsense: “Not even wrong.”
I doubt that either Jason or Jim will get the joke, though.
Bad Rand! In this case, the future is easy to predict.
I agree that proponents of Falcon Heavy need to actually wait until it is flying before making claims about it. (Same goes for SLS, though.) Especially when it comes to price.
I agree that Falcon Heavy is not a slot-in replacement for an SLS lunar exploration mission.
I agree that there are launch vehicles which have better flight histories than any SpaceX launch vehicle.
It’s not entirely apparent to me that avoiding Earth-orbit rendezvous mission modes makes any sense anymore. The arguments against it are straight out of the 1960s and no longer valid (if they were ever valid). The US (and Russia) has decades of experience doing assembly in low Earth orbit now. Solar-electric propulsion is available now and solar-thermal is not far off, as well as electrodynamic tethers and other options for boosting an assembled payload to higher orbits.
It’s not entirely apparent to me that avoiding Earth-orbit rendezvous mission modes makes any sense anymore. The arguments against it are straight out of the 1960s and no longer valid (if they were ever valid).
They were valid in the sixties only because the goal was not to open up space, but to beat the Russians to the moon. They are certainly no longer valid. Assuming the goal is to open up space.
But apparently some peoples’ goal is to build big rockets…
Shorter Hillhouse, et al:
1. You damn whippersnappers with your newfangled notions – GET OFF MY LAWN!
2. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Jim at nasaspaceflight, and Jim at AmericaSpace.
Coincidence? 🙂
Yes, coincidence. They have different last names, for one. Jim at nasaspaceflight doesn’t advertise his much, but he hasn’t exactly kept it a secret either. And it isn’t Hillhouse.
No, I don’t think it’s the same Jim.
Jim Hillhouse’s comments are too long. They’re more than a word or a phrase.
I think NSF’s Jim really wants to see SpaceX succeed. He is just interested in numbers and results, and has little patience for fanboys.
Different people, I believe Jim Hillhouse actually has an account under his own name at NSF.
It was just a joke, guys.
I saw that Jason is the real trash-talker over there.
As for Jim at nasaspaceflight, it’s not his opinions that are problematic. It’s his Statements from God (that sometimes, contrary to popular belief, do turn out to be wrong) and his willingness to slam people in a manner that some might call sociopathic.
Fanboys? Just an ad-hominem rhetorical label for those with differing opinions.
The problem really isn’t Jim. Yes, he’s illogical, and innumerate, and doesn’t understand budgets, but he’s civil, and willing to engage. The problem is Jason, and his short fuse when he’s losing an argument, and his total lack of a sense of irony.
. . . plus when Jason asks for people to refute his points – and someone actually does very logically on a point by point basis with citations – all he does is say thank you and never refutes the reply.
That was my “lost hour” with Jason. Like you, I wish i could get it back.
Ironic that the leading advertiser at Americaspace is a company selling SpaceX t-shirts.
You can’t buy irony like that anymore.
The article was a good read, the author brought up some good points and the comments were lively.
Not sure why people think there shouldn’t be arguments or discussions about space policy. It isn’t like there is one right way or flaws with any personally ideal path.
The problem is Jason.. he’ll happily change arguments in mid-stream, pigeon-hole people and attack things they never said, etc, etc.
This Trent guy is just another one of those Simberg trolls. He’s a liar, liar pants on fire. He can’t confuse us with reason.
Looks like they scrubbed my comments and banned me from posting. Granted one of my comments called Jason out for making fun of someone’s name but my other one was on point and an insightful comment if I do say so myself.
But Jason didn’t ban my ip just my email, like I don’t have others. So I left this comment, I bet it wont be around in the am.
“It is unrealistic to expect that people wont discuss our space policy without any friction.
The internet is a beautiful thing. It allows us to converse with people who have different points of views as our own. It is a market place of ideas where arguments are made and countered. Ideas survive based on their merits, not on the roll a person serves in meatspace and people should not be disqualified from participation because you don’t know their RL identity.
You should address the comments they make head on, that is what adults do.
For someone who seems so concerned with being treated with respect, you treat other people with a distinct lack of it. Reading your comments on other posts confirms this.
If you want people to take you seriously and give you respect, then you have to engage with them in the exchange of ideas. Respect is earned not given.
But by all means ban me again or you could act like an accomplished adult and address something I actually write.”
Yep, it’s gone. I guess someone didn’t agree.
Funny thing was how he blammed other people for his attitude. I was like the 270th comment and hardly the cause of his attitude in that thread or others. If he is a dick in every thread to everyone that posts the mildest of criticism, maybe the driving factor behind the way he treats people has nothing to do with other people and everything to do with what’s bouncing around in his own noggin.
I don’t get it.
The one thing that’s missing from that article is the most important thing of all: cost. Who cares if the Falcon Heavy isn’t as capable as a hypothetical SLS or even the Delta IV Heavy for that matter if it’s vastly cheaper?
If NASA had set aside the SLS development budget for 2012 and put it towards a contract for purchasing Falcon Heavy flights they would be able to launch 170 tonnes.
Not into low Earth orbit, into GTO or TLI. And they probably could complete those flights by 2015 or so. That’s something like 1/3 of the entire manned Apollo program. For as much money as has ALREADY been spent on the SLS alone.
(For reference, 170 tonnes in GTO is enough to build a rather shockingly well outfitted space station using ISS based systems.)
Yeah, it’s great that SLS hasn’t managed to exceed its massively inflated budget or schedule in the phase where it’s all just viewgraphs and spreadsheets, congrats on that boys, good work. They’ve spent more money on NOT building a single rocket using off the shelf engines and tanks than the SpaceX guys have on building 4 rockets including 6 different sets of tanks, 5 different engines, and a pressurized capsule, all from scratch. All while developing a reusable launcher at the same time.
I just don’t get it. How can these people live in a world where money and schedules are irrelevant?
Who cares if the Falcon Heavy isn’t as capable as a hypothetical SLS
Don’t confuse capability with size. The Spruce Goose was many times larger than the DC-3. The DC-3 was vastly more capable. The number of missions does not equal the number of flights.
Yeah I, um, have a friend who tried to tell her that. She didn’t buy it.
Then again it may be. I read that a slight modification of the upper stage may give them a 70mt payload capability. Wouldn’t that be something if it came out before the SLS did? I wouldn’t put it passed, cheese wheel Elon.
How can these people live in a world where money and schedules are irrelevant?
What is the penalty for them in living in such a world, other than ultimately being disappointed when their fantasies don’t come true? Assuming, of course, that they don’t extend those fantasy principles to their own household budgets…
Nailed it Rand, they live in a penalty free world. They want to raise the next generation to believe they can all be winners as well with no cost.
TANSTAAFL denied.
Rand, IMHO they extend those fantasy principals to all of OUR budgets; how else can we explain the current belief of many that the ballooning national debt is not a problem? They deny fiscal reality, and the consequences for themselves, and all of us, will be beyond catastrophic.
They seem to view things in isolation, thereby ignoring that the world doesn’t work that way. Thus, they ignore interrelated aspects (and the consequences thereof) such as cost per pound, launch rate, etc, etc, in the selfsame way that they ignore the economic costs and consequences of their other pet causes.
I’ve been thinking about the comments for and against the SLS on that poll at NSF, and yeah, that really came across: Those against SLS were so because of cost, those in favor were so because they see SLS as a big rocket that fulfills their idealistic fantasies.
Yes. And it’s not just cost, it’s also a question of dynamism vs. stasis. What the SLS supporters pay for their dream, is not just their (and other taxpayers’) money, it’s the continuing stranglehold of rent-seeking politicians on what should be a dynamic, market-driven expansion of humans off the Earth. (Pardon me, I had a moment there.)
On the other hand, I believe Elon Musk realized long ago that while government money and NASA support go a long way, he can do without them if necessary. His plans don’t put NASA HSF in the critical path, and unlike the Old Guys, he doesn’t wait for a government contract to get out of his chair.
One thing I’m very curious about; why does FH have such a disparity between LEO and GTO payload? (For FH, 120,000 lb to LEO, 26,000lb to GTO, VS. Delta IV heavy 50,000 Lb to LEO, 28,000 lb to GTO)
That’s a huge difference in LEO to GTO payload ratio for the two systems. (4.61 for FH, 1.78 for D4H)
If FH had the same ratio, it’d have a GTO capability of 67415lbs.
Delta 4’s upper stage is LOX/LH, with a high ISP (462) which I’m sure accounts for some of it, but that’d impact LEO throw weight too, wouldn’t it? The article implies the difference is all in the second stage, But Falcon 9 (1.0) has a LEO to GTO ratio of 1.49, which is even better than the delta 4 heavy, so I just don’t get it.
Obviously, I’m missing something obvious, because there clearly is a large difference.
Help?
Delta 4′s upper stage is LOX/LH, with a high ISP (462) which I’m sure accounts for some of it, but that’d impact LEO throw weight too, wouldn’t it?
The Falcon Heavy is RP-1 and LOX in all stages, the Delta IV Heavy LH2 and LOX in all stages.
The result is that the mass at first stage burnout / launch mass is lower for the Falcon compared to the Delta, and the mass at second stage burnout / mass at first stage burnout is also lower than the Delta
Maybe someone else should have a crack at answering your query, I’ve just worked out that the Falcon Heavy has a higher launch mass to LEO payload ratio than the Delta IV Heavy, which surprises me.
Not sure why. It has a much lower specific impulse all the way to orbit. I’d expect it to have a higher GLOW per pound.
Specific Impulse, the measure of ‘efficiency’ of a rocket engine is the best measurement to use when comparing engines that are already in orbit, or close to it. When climbing out of Earth’s gravity well, the rate at which you throw mass out the back of the rocket is another major factor. Since Falcon Heavy uses all RP-1 and LOX, its advantages show in the LEO payload mass. Delta IV has the higher Isp, but that doesn’t come into play as a major factor until the second stage is most of the way into orbit. A more efficient rocket would have an RP-1/LOX first stage and an LH2/LOX 2nd stage and beyond. See the Saturn V and Atlas boosters for good examples. A Falcon Heavy with a LH2/LOX upper stage would have an amazing capability beyond LEO, though the increase in it’s LEO mass would be less impressive.
Then just use the Falcon Heavies to boost a large hydrogen core stage.
Do you guys ever bother to simulate lego rockets?
You will be surprised, trust me.
Do you guys ever bother to simulate lego rockets?
Yes, indeed: kerbalspaceprogram.com
Many kerbals have died to bring us this information.
Decided to join the KSP. A few more kerbals have paid the ultimate sacrifice. Interestingly, I have no problem finding more kerbals ready to give it a go for just that chance.
Thanks for all the input.
What was confusing me the most was the apparent disparity between the GTO/LEO ratio for Falcon Heavy vs. Falcon (1.0) because obviously fuel differences were not involved.
However, I apologize for this, because I made a mistake; I got some of the numbers from Wikipedia (Bad idea). Another set of numbers looks more realistic to me;
Falcon 9 1.0 LEO 9 metric tons, GT0 3.5 mt.
Falcon 9 1.1 LEO 13.14 mt GTO 4.85 mt
Falcon Heavy LEO 53mt GTO 19 mt.
I used http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/falcon9v1-1.html
for the above figures.
That;s interesting in another way; the Americaspace article listed FH as having “barely over” 12 mt to GTO. IMHO, 19mt is a lot more than 12, and also happens to be a lot more than Delta4 heavy can do (the article claimed it was less). Personally, I find the 19mt ton (41887lbs) to GTO for FH to be very believable, as it’s very similar LEO to GTO ratio to that of F9 1.1. (roughly 2.7)
As a guess, the Americaspace article writer was using SpaceX’s site, which does not (oddly) seem to have 1.1 specs, and the FH specs there seem based on F9 1.0 components(?) at 12MT to GTO.
There do seem to be quite a lot of numbers out there.
It’s not hard to overlook revising numbers when things change as it has with their engine upgrades. I have this feeling that Musk is planning to pull a fast one on the SLS by coming out with a FH 70mt payload before the SLS ever flies. It might take a longer upper stage or a second engine? But how will they argue for it’s continuation if he did?
Hmmm… SpaceX’s own website lists the FH GTO mass as 12,000kg while matching the 53,000kg for LEO:
http://www.spacex.com/falcon_heavy.php
Does it seem to anyone else that Americaspace deletes and modifies comments after the fact? It may just be my poor perception and memory that makes it seem that Rands’ comments in particular are removed leaving only the replies favoring the other side.
I mean this as a question and not a statement. If true, it would suggest a level of deceit that I wouldn’t like to believe. I would prefer it not to be true, but rather a failure to understand on my part.
I don’t know. I haven’t checked to see if any of my comments have been removed or modified. But I’m done with the place.
Yes they do and it even screws up the hierarchal links. My latest post is a claim that the Orion is outmatched in all cases by a Sundancer (which explains Bigelow’s claim that the Orion is unnecessary.)
After seeing the treatment of Coastal Ron it was not hard to say “the future is easy to predict” regarding Rand’s banishment.
How close to the edge can ya go? I suspect my Sundancer post might do it. He’s already hinted at it.
They banned Coastal Ron too? Madness.
Well looks like I’m out, I suggested to Jason that if he was capable of introspection he’d realize he was worse than the commenters he was always complaining about.
I’ll repost a comment I’ve just made at Spudis Lunar Resources in reply to “Joe” here in case it doesn’t get through moderation (as my previous comment there didn’t)
Andrew W says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
May 4, 2013 at 6:20 pm
Joe:(4) Question: Why is the Falcon Heavy so much cheaper?
Answer (from the Space X supporters): Because its flight rate will be so much higher.
It is a circular argument that makes no sense, but they are wedded to it and will repeat it over and over again no matter what.
No, because SpaceX has demonstrated the ability to build and launch rockets more cheaply than is done under the established system, irrespective of flight rates This brings about the possibility of a virtuous circle, cheaper launch rates generating more payload bringing about still cheaper launch rates etc.
I was similarly banned and as far as I know, it’s the only blog where that’s happened to me (though I have been asked to leave a blog for providing a half-hearted defense of transhumanism). It was the same story – Hillhouse defending the SLS while completely ignoring the likely problems that SLS will face, should it ever become flight-ready. And then suddenly, my posts stopped appearing. No warning, of course. It’s a classic stealth banning.
I haven’t been back since.
Regarding the banning at that site… I wasn’t inclined to go there before, and I’m surely not now.
I’d like to take this timely opportunity to say Thank You Rand Simberg for creating this far better site, and for being an infinitely better host.
And Rand will not only answers questions but let you disagree with him without wielding the banhammer. One day he might say you are full of it and the next quote you in a blog post because he isn’t a thin skinned little girl with an authority complex.
Yep, hat off to Rand, I admit I’ve been very … um, direct in criticizing him on occasion, direct in ways that would have had most blog owners using their power to deal with me.
I must now formally thank Jim Hillhouse for leading me to my low cost $1b to mars in less than ten years plan. As opposed to his $3b+ after 20 years if the SLS actually flies plan.
“NASA makes me feel good about the future more than Solyndra or other taxpayer funded “FREE” enterprise ventures chosen by your comrades in the Politburo.”
I don’t have a clue how to respond to this ridiculous accusation over there.
Any ideas?
Sorry, can’t help. My latest problem with sites that don’t post comments that raise inconvenient facts is at Spudis Lunar Resources site, where I’m not allowed to reply to billgamesh, me apparently being one of “the endless legions of Musk’s deluded sycophants”.
Yes, Dr. Spudis is one of those that will remove your comments or ban you if he doesn’t like what you have to say. Still, he writes some good stuff.