Clark Lindsey has a roundup, and some thought of his own. I agree with them. No surprises there, and it the dissing of the moon was disappointing (probably even more so to Paul Spudis), but as Clark notes, destinations aren’t important right now. There’s plenty of time to figure that out and argue about it while we (finally) get the other pieces straightened out.
[Friday morning update]
Alan Boyle has more on the story, with a lot of links.
[Update a few minutes later]
Here are some comments on the plan over at PBS, from Jeff Greason, Keith Cowing, Tom Young, and a clueless state senator from the Space Coast:
[With the new plan] we’d have to rely on the Russians to get to the station. And you know, I’m a historian, I teach history — and needless to say they have not always been our most reliable allies. I fear once we lose the ability to get ourselves into space, it puts us in vulnerable position.
New flash, professor. That was the case under the old plan. And it was going to be for a lot longer. The opposition to this continues to live in a logic-free and fact-free zone.
[Update about 9 AM PDT]
Justin Kugler muses on the impact for JSC. I agree with him on pretty much all counts. I’m considering my personal war on heavy lift won for now, given that policy is no longer being driven by it, and there’s now plenty of time to educate the community on the lack of need for it. My next target is the notion of a “lifeboat” that has to bring the entire Titanic’s complement back to Southampton.
john hare
But is there any evidence of a coming paradigm shift in rocketry? As long as its chemical its limited in what is possible. And no, I would not necessary consider a RLV as a paradigm shift as its more an economic choice – reuse or dispose of, which is cheaper. Both Robert Goddard and Von Braun had “reusable” rockets in that some of the test vehicles they flew in the 1930’s and early forties (look up A-5) were reused. I seem to recall from reading Willy Ley one of the A-5 flew about 20 times. And then of course you have have the Rocket planes like the Me-163 which were flown often 3-4 times a day in combat.
As a side note, how many of the rocket engines designed in the 1960’s are still be used in some form today? And probably be continued to be used in the future?
As for cost plus, what I find so funny is that folks today see it as a way of old space making profits. When they were widely introduced in World War II many firms were against them because they felt they would limit their profits 🙂 How the world has gone full circle.
A true RLV would be create paradigm shift. If you have an RLV capable of daily flights per vehicle, operators are going to fly those vehicles to recover their investment and make a profit. These vehicles will not make money sitting on the ground. There are too many bad analogies about RLV vs ELV to rehash here. As an equipment owner myself, I keep them moving at low profit rather than sitting still and being an overhead burden. The payload to orbit difference potential across a years time is incredible compared to ELVs. A ton per workday would have a single small RLV delivering more mass to orbit per year than the Shuttle fleet at it’s peak.
The firearm shift was of this nature. The repeating rifles, Gatling guns, early machine guns, and breech loading artillery used the same powder and projectile materials as the muzzle loaders, just far more effectively.
I have seen a number of hints of considerably improved rocket engines in terms of performance, weight, and operability. While it remains to be seen how much does happen, it is quite possible that the entire current rocket engine hardware could be useless antiques in twenty years or less.
I have read a bit on rocket history. Reusable was an obvious win from the start, in most scenerios, especially research and transportation. Expendable was an obvious weapons choice, or when there is no realistic manner of getting the job done and getting the vehicle back, like the Mars rovers.
I personally dislike cost plus because it does limit my profits. When you run a very lean operation, your plus becomes lean also. When the construction economy starts recovering, I will lean heavily toward bid projects again so I can make some money. Also there is a pride factor in getting into jobs and knocking them out right the first time without all the futzing around that cost plus attracts.
I have lost bids because I was too low for the general contractor to make enough money. There are certain contractors that will show the customer the normal three bids and select the lowest to save them money. They will not mention that they actually got ten bids and threw away the low ones. Cost plus has a way of attracting shady dealing.
On fixed bid, if I’m too low, it’s too bad. Finish the job for what I bid if I want to get paid. If you leave, you don’t get paid, and you never get work from that contractor again or any of his associates. If I’m too high, I don’t get the job, or if I get it anyway, I make good profit.
John,
[[[A true RLV would be create paradigm shift.]]]
I used to think that in the DC-X days, but the more I look at RLVs the more I see them as an evolutionary shift, not a revolutionary one. And they will be driven by market demand, not technology push.
Dr. Matula
With redundancy you don’t need a lifeboat seat for every astronaut at the station. A lifeboat is designed for reentry. A taxi/shuttle can be much simpler. If you have other habitats to go to lifeboats can be launched as/when needed. You would still need enough taxi seats docked to transfer all astronauts in an emergency. Plus, taxis have non-emergency uses as well (tugs?)