Asked by Jeff Greason why we as a society stopped pushing the technologies we needed to be pre-eminent in civil and military space, the former administrator blamed it on “My Generation,” the Baby Boomers. He prefaced the statement with the caveat that he had thought long and hard about it, and didn’t have a good answer, and that it was only his opinion, and that it might be wrong. Obviously many of us are exceptions (and he obviously thinks himself one) but that was the only answer that he could come up with.
In response to a question from Greg Sullivan, he noted that when we feel threatened (e.g., being attacked with IEDs) we throw the acquisition book out the window to solve the problem. Clearly, we don’t currently feel threatened enough to do that with space technology development and acquisition.
[Update a while later]
Jeff’s answer: We don’t want game-changing technologies, because they upset the Russians, and arms-control regimes. They don’t like game changers, because they like and are comfortable with the game. Reagan administration was rare exception. Not surprised that we do not attain that which we do not want.
In commercial market, the market will drive things. If Brilliant Pebbles had gone forward, we’d have much cheaper launch today. If there was a market, we’d have satisfied it by now. If assured market, he could go to the bank and get the money for reusable vehicle.
Demand is key. Airmail-like things would help (already starting this with COTS). Could buy payloads and capability, rather than resources. Isn’t as concerned about tech development for launch vehicles, except things that allow SSTO. But it’s important to learn how to integrate two-stage stage system, and that would be productive area.
Could you elaborate on that? I’m not sure what part of two-stage systems integration is lacking, other than in general.
I do agree (US, USSR, etc) seem to have hit an unfortunate comfort level with 1950’s to 1970’s rocket technology, whose difficulty and expense serves to weed out military competition from “minor” countries (punks with ego problems) and maintain the status quo of major-power dominance in missiles and satellites, which is something current players would be reluctant to give up.
I recall that back in the DC-X days there was a senior staffer on the Hill who was openly against CATS (Cheap Access To Space) – he thought it would enable SDI etc. and he believed that would destabilizing….
“I recall that back in the DC-X days there was a senior staffer on the Hill who was openly against CATS (Cheap Access To Space) – he thought it would enable SDI etc. and he believed that would destabilizing….”
Yes, …then in 1993 that staffer, John Hamre, was appointed Comptroller of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, …The man who signs the checks. Once that happened, every check the program got was like pulling teeth. Hamre delayed the program enough that SDI could not fund Delta Clipper before the new “Space Architect” assigned all manned spaceflight to NASA. We know what happened after that.
I wonder how the recent breakthru in compsite tanking by Boeing impacts the practicality of SSTO?
I wonder how using Sabre engines as boosters on a VTOL (rather than the Skylon) would impact the practicality of SSTO. I’ve been using them in Kerbal Space Program as vertical boosters, and if the simulation has any fidelity the real Sabre engines could be used the same way, making a reusable SSTO much smaller than DC-X – I’m getting mass fractions of less than 0.5.
KSP != reality. Not even close.
Airbreathing engines on a VTOL makes very little sense, because a VTOL craft wants to leave the atmosphere ASAP (a sensible thing to do), where as an airbreathing craft needs to stay in the atmosphere while building up speed.
And that’s the basic flaw with Skylon and all similar SSTO concepts… They need to linger in the atmospheric soup as long as possible, when the efficient thing to do is to exit the atmosphere ASAP.
The Sabre isn’t just an airbreather, it will also operate as a rocket engine. So you’re only breathing air for the first 15-20 km at an ISP of 2800 then switching over to rocket mode.
I know KSP is not reality – it’s a first order approximation. However on that first order approximation I’m getting a mass fraction of 0.4. Beat that without an airbreather.
Probably not that much on a re-usable system (and if you don’t need it re-usable, an old Atlas missile could do SSTO), given all the other weights in the system if you try to make it an aerodynamic flight vehicle.
The 40% reduction in tank weight over aluminum would translate directly into payload on an SSTO, and certainly bonding thermal protection and insulation to graphite composite is much easier than bonding to aluminum, but I still think you’d have trouble beating the price/performance of a multi-stage system unless you make further advances in engine performance or fuels, or perhaps combine it with an air-breathing phase.
I would be curious about the costs on the composite tanks, and whether they could fully automate the production of an isogrid version. I think aluminum isogrid is potentially forgeable (instead of milling it), which would get the cost in line with even SpaceX’s friction welded tanks.
My worry is that given the set of incentives and price structures, we’d get a better tank that nobody but NASA could afford instead of tanks that are cheap.
It was a lot of things. After the US got out of WWII and the rest of the world caught up with the destruction it was obvious the US was no longer going to be the only engine in the world economy capable of any serious punch. Vietnam hurt the US national ego. Then there was the oil crisis, which increased the prices and costs of nearly everything.
The arms race morass is quite simple. The money being funneled into defense simply couldn’t be handled anymore. It bankrupted the Soviet Union and may yet bankrupt the US. After the Dreadnought arms race in the early XXth century the larger powers signed the Washington Naval Treaty in arms reductions. Today we have both military and conventional arms reductions treaties just as well.
Personally I think we missed a lot of technology from the winding down of military funding. Sustained flight at mach 3 or more, liquid air cycle engines, Project Orion, DC-X, I could go on with the list but it is all just sad.
What we have is some materials advances and some computer hardware and software advances. While these supposedly decrease the manned administrative overhead for nearly everything I suspect the state and other actors will just increase the amount of bureaucracy to compensate so even that may come to a wash. Think of it as the political/managerial equivalent of Wirth’s law. They need to justify those jobs somehow.
It is time to think big again. Big dreams and big projects. Not to have issues taking risks when the payoff is big enough and think longer term. If there is one thing I admire in the current Chinese system is that they still seem to believe in human material progress by way of technology which seems awfully lost here in the west.