Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

One MAJOR nit.

Neither Delta nor Atlas were designed and developed with private money. Both programs were funded by the Defense Department to help drop nukes on the USSR. Delta and Atlas were paid for by the US taxpayers.

Russias Dnepr is available for the same price per pound to LEO as Elon Musk proposes for Falcon and its merely a re-tooled ICBM.

NO ONE has ever flown to LEO in a rocket not funded substantially by government R&D money.

Burt Rutan may well win the X-Prize and GOD SPEED from me, yet Paul Allen (correct?) is funding him as an expensive hobby.

Posted by Bill White at March 24, 2004 08:25 PM

The type of competition proposed herein is the same type of competition Hillary Clinton proposed with her single payor health care system.

Posted by Bill Whiteq at March 24, 2004 08:27 PM

Sorry to triple post but this next point kinda sticks with me:

That is not surprising; Delta-IV and Atlas-V take at least a billion dollars per year to sustain – but vehicles already on the market can spread their costs over many customers – which NASA cannot do.

Who will buy Delta IV or Atlas V except NASA and DoD? SeaLaunch and the Russians (especially Soyuz from Kouru) will out compete both Delta and Atlas for commercial satellites. And if American launch companies are suported by protectionism, how does that help?

Delta IVH serves TWO users - Defense and NASA. No one else needs Delta IVH, so who are the private users to share the costs with?

Posted by Bill White at March 24, 2004 08:46 PM

Bill White

"Burt Rutan may well win the X-Prize and GOD SPEED from me, yet Paul Allen (correct?) is funding him as an expensive hobby."

I don't recall reading why Paul Allen is funding Scaled. It's certainly possible it's not a hobby but a genuine interest.

Allen's money is his own, not government R+D. That gives me some hope for private funding.

Posted by Brian at March 25, 2004 10:26 AM

"And let us not be distracted by the myth of “man-rating”. The difference in reliability between commercial satellite launchers and historic “man-rated” vehicles is a few percent – while the presence of a robust escape system can increase the probability of crew survival 10 or 20 fold. Clearly, that is where effort should be focused."

I see this as a slight over-simplification. The problem is that "man-rating" a vehicle does not mean simply increasing its reliability. If it did, then the differences would essentially evaporate, because commercial satellite operators should be nearly as interested in higher reliability as the human spaceflight community. (I know that there is a cost-benefit calculation involved, but losing several hundred million dollars on a launch is still a powerful incentive to increase reliability.)

My understanding (I'm willing to be corrected) is that "man-rating" a vehicle essentially means three things: a) increasing vehicle monitoring and instrumentation, b) eliminating as many unacceptable failure modes as possible, and c) adding an escape system. Focusing only on reliability and an escape system misses these other two points. And the argument becomes a tautology if you say that the escape system automatically entails eliminating unacceptable failure modes and increasing instrumentation.

Can anybody point to a good description of what man-rating a vehicle entails?

Posted by Dwayne A. Day at March 25, 2004 12:23 PM

That's basically correct (which is why the Shuttle isn't man rated, which in turn is why the concept of man rating is really meaningless). Jeff was a little sloppy.

There is a formal JSC document on this, and it's probably available on the web, but I don't have a URL for it handy. However, in my view, the whole notion of man rating is a red herring that distracts us from the real issues. I wrote about this a couple years ago. It was a Fox column as well, but they managed to accidentally delete it from the archives. It got quite a bit of reader response, though, which I followed up on here.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 25, 2004 12:34 PM

Of course Jeff's speech was an (over) simplication. It was a mandated 5 minute speech to a wide audience on a complex subject. Regardless whether currently existing launchers were developed with government money or U.S. or not, is not the point. The point is that NASA has a finite amount of money that could be better spent developing payloads (including CEV) and not a new launcher. Let the market, (which includes current players and new wannabes) provide the lift, if they can, as they can, and when they can.

Also, when I worked for a MSFC contractor, our working definition of man-rating was "When you hold meetings and more meetings and nobody objects anymore, you have man rating." This is neither a barb nor a joke. The formal documents are a guideline to strive for, but you get man rating when all the signatures are on the documents.

And BTW, man rating is a term only NASA uses. Neither cars, nor aircraft, nor FAA licensed launch vehicles are man rated.

Dan DeLong

Posted by Dan DeLong at March 25, 2004 02:08 PM

"Can anybody point to a good description of what man-rating a vehicle entails?"

Do these links help?

http://www.astroexpo.com/reference/techpapersdetail.asp?id=164&csort=1
http://www.astroexpo.com/reference/techpapersdetail.asp?id=165&csort=1
http://www.astroexpo.com/reference/techpapersdetail.asp?id=166&csort=1

Posted by ken murphy at March 25, 2004 02:32 PM

I saw this recently -

"X-43C, RS-84 Engine Among Casualties Of NASA Review"

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_aerospacedaily_story.jsp?id=news/eng03194.xml

I don't know the details, so there could be good reason, but this sounds like exactly the type of research NASA should be doing for cheaper space - Hypersonic and reusuable engine technology. My impression is that NASA is focusing only on throwaway rockets. I'd like to see something like the DC-X brought back, with new technology focused only at improving reliability or reducing operating cost.

Posted by VR at March 25, 2004 03:53 PM

VR, that's premised on the notion that the reason that we don't have cheap launch is because NASA hasn't been developing the right "technologies."

But NASA technology development (and particularly airbreathing technology development) is neither a necessary or a sufficient condition to reduce launch costs. It's a market problem, not a technology problem.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 25, 2004 04:08 PM

Rand, I absolutely agree that technological advancements are specifically NOT required to reduce the cost of spaceflight. But I am strongly in favor of research that COULD reduce spaceflight cost and increase reliability. Things like: Better reentry heat management systems, increased reliability/very long use engine designs, long term research like scramjets and tethers. I would not want these to be worked on to be part of the next great NASA boondoggle/”operational” spacecraft. I WOULD like to see them researched, as part of real x-plane, or just basic, research programs to provide more options for future spacecraft, public and private.

There’s also the question of what is technological research. Scramjets are definitely research, but what about tougher heat shield tiles? There is a fuzzy line between near term research and new designs using existing technology.

Posted by VR at March 25, 2004 04:44 PM

I've no objection to NASA working on enhancing technologies. The problem is that they pretend that they're enabling technologies, and use them as a club to bash the notion that we can't get cheap launch without them (thus inhibiting private investment). Given their track record of doing this, it's hard for me to shed tears if they go away.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 25, 2004 04:49 PM

"I'd like to see something like the DC-X brought back, with new technology focused only at improving reliability or reducing operating cost."

But that wasn't NASA: that was SDIO. The moment NASA got its hands on the bird, they crashed it.

Posted by Aleta Jackson at March 25, 2004 06:10 PM

That was great testimony and I can't imagine it not having some impact. The problems with NASA are so blatant that finally some of the message seems to be getting through.

Bill W - the fact that Delta and Atlas were tax funded misses the point. The point is that they are existing systems that establish a benchmark for payload and cost that the private sector can compete against. ...and so, "Who will buy Delta IV or Atlas V except NASA and DoD?" is also beside the point.

Also, we don't need no stinkin' enabling tech. or man-rating for that matter. It's an issue of informed consent. If those on-board say they will strap that rocket on their collective butts and light the thing, then it is man-rated and they've got all the tech. they need (with competition providing better tech. down the road.)

BTW, I believe very strongly that those that have died, didn't have informed consent. Obviously they consented, but were they informed... and if they were, could they really have acted on that information?

Posted by ken anthony at March 25, 2004 11:34 PM

To say using Delta IV for NASA to help cost share with Defense is 100% appropriate. Actually its a good thing.

The idea that ANY comercial user will purchase Delta IV or Atlas V on the free market is ridiculous. Why? Buying Russian is and will be cheaper for a long time to come.

Elon Musk's Falcon is wonderful, yet Russia offers (TODAY) the same payload to LEO as Falcon proposes to carry on Dnepr, built from surplus SSBMs. Russia cannot sell Dnepr launches because of a lack of demand.

If Musk's Falcon undercuts Dnepr, Russia can simply lower its price and undercut Musk. After all those SSBMs are simply sitting as inventory.

Yet let us be clear. What is being proposed is old fashioned all American protectionism. Not a bad idea. The Pentagon needs Delta IV and if NASA can help cost share, well okay with me.

But lets not fanatsize into private sector commercial BS.

Posted by Bill White at March 26, 2004 07:09 AM

Aleta:

I know NASA destroyed the DC-X when it was turned over to them. But that is an example of the sort of program I would like to see taken forward – emphasis on reliability, reusability, low operational personnel requirement, and fairly conventional technology. The fact that NASA ignored it when it was the only option that had half a chance for the X-33 program, and destroyed the test unit on NASA’s first flight says volumes about NASA.

Bill White:

“But let’s not fantasize into private sector commercial BS.”

What BS? Or is this just more automatic condemnation of non-government space programs from the guy who has already characterized Allen’s spacecraft as “an expensive hobby”? I’ve been waiting for NASA to get off their rear for 30 years, and there isn’t any sign they are going to turn it all around now. Ultimately, space will never go anywhere without a major commercial component, whether or not the current attempts will work. But I am far more hopeful about them getting somewhere in the next 15 years than NASA.

Posted by VR at March 26, 2004 01:32 PM

Bill White:

The point is which methodology is going to take Bill White, John Doe or Joe Sixpack into LEO and beyond. It sure as hell AIN'T NASA. Got it?

Good.

Posted by Simon Jester at March 27, 2004 05:30 PM

Bill, appropriate to what? This is what the articles says...

"I mean that NASA should use commercial providers as its sole means of transportation to Earth orbit. That means that if they cannot find a commercial provider for a given launch capability, THEY MUST DO WITHOUT IT."

If the Russian have the cheapest equipment, let NASA buy it. Which also doesn't preclude an American company from using a Russian (or Chinese or whatever) subcontractor.

The point is, let the market do it's magic and let's get of the NASA go-nowhere merry-go-round.

That's the point.

Posted by at March 27, 2004 06:45 PM

Bill, this is what the article says...

So if Russia or China or whoever has the product, let NASA buy it. That doesn't preclude an American company from subcontracting any source for doing the same.

We need to get off the go-nowhere NASA merry-go-round. That's the point.

Posted by ken anthony at March 27, 2004 06:51 PM

Either I had an Alzheimer moment or using both IE and Mozilla at the same time is a bad idea... ;)

Posted by ken anthony at March 28, 2004 09:18 AM

Buy Russian? I have ZERO problem with that.

Start with NASA's budget and add the freedom to buy Russian and we could be on the moon before 2010.

By the way, I read Elon Musk seeks to man-rate Falcon V. Excellent. So why will NASA spend billions to develop CEV for Delta IV and Atlas V? Will NASA fly Falcon after the taxpayers pay Boeing to develop CEV?

= = =

So you want to create incentive for private spaceflight? So do I. A genuine space hotel would give Musk and Starsem all the demand they coud handle for flying paying passengers to LEO.

Finance it with naming rights and commercial sponsors and build it with the spare ISS-Zarya module sitting on the shelf in Russia and a new Transhab module.

How much might Hilton or Hyatt or Starwood pay to have the first dedicated space hotel under its franchise? I say $250 million for five years is a conservative estimate. Just for name rights.

How much would Verizon pay for an ad "Can you hear me now" from this space hotel?

You could launch this with two Protons - - but it would be at a lousy inclination. Shuttle C would be far easier.

Then if Musk does man-rate Falcon V, he can sell tickets as fast as he can fly.

= = =

The goal must be to escape "single payor" for spaceflight and US tax dollars are a single payor source whether NASA or Pentagon.

Posted by Bill White at March 29, 2004 09:41 AM

Post a comment