cage@fmeed1.UUCP (Russ Cage) (10/27/90)
In <6781@hub.ucsb.edu> 3001crad@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Charles Frank Radley) writes: >Sorry about the double spacing, but the editor on this system >does it every time I try to upload a pre-prepared message. If you are ASCII-uploading to a Unix system, strip linefeeds on upload. > I thought the HLV would be reusable....There is some psychology >involved, Shuttle exists, HLV does not. There is a risk in >betting that a non-existent HLV will work. Once again, the >problem of credibility. There is no risk in betting that the Titan and Delta motors will fire, that SRB's will provide thrust (with an occasional failure), and that fuel tanks will hold fuel. The risk is that they might exhibit new and unwelcome behavior when bolted together, which is a rather small risk. The costs of refurbishing an entirely new vehicle based on brand-new technology in order to use it over again are much riskier to any proposition depending on economics. (And you SHOULD know that.) >+ Does Freedom figure in the cost of developing the Shuttle in >+ their costing? > >They don't have to because Shuttle exists and its development is >previously paid for. > >+ they also use subsidized numbers. > >The tapayer is subsidizing himself ? I do not understand. Is your mis-understanding the result of not reading the previous material posted to this newsgroup, or deliberate? Shuttle's operating costs relating to Fred are not entirely charged to Fred. The taxpayer is subsidizing the Fred launch and operations budget with the Shuttle budget, to make the former less outrageous. After this is paid for, how much space science, materials science and life science will get done (the avowed purpose of Fred)? >+ This HLV will cost less than ONE shuttle flight to develop. >+It will lift twice what the Shuttle lifts for a quater to half >+the launch costs. > >Sounds good. Good enough to get private venture >capital.....right ? So why don't they just go do it ? Why do >they want the taxpayer to underwrite it ? You really aren't listening, are you? The answer is, they don't. They just won't build it without a customer (sensible, no?). The taxpayer is NOT underwriting anything, the taxpayer is BUYING something (and paying on delivery); vendor's risk. Do you understand the difference? >+ Besides, they plan to fly it 20 times. Maybe somebody else can >+ also use it. However even at one use it will be far far cheaper >+ than using the Shuttle. > >Now you have taken the bait......who is going to pay for those 20 >flights ? Uh, people who look at the pricetag and find it attractive? Remember, the development is PAID FOR by the first launch. Additional launches are just gravy. > Not at all, SSX is also 90 % off the shelf. And for a traffic >projection of 20 flights will be cheaper than an expendable HLV. Show me anything like SSX which has flown even 2 flights, and come within a factor of 2 of its cost target. > + Given the cost of the NASA ACRV this comes as no suprise. Why >+ not just buy a Soyuz? > >Because that opens other questions, like why not launch Freedom >or LLNL using Energia ? Excellent idea! Why not? }:-> It does bring up the question: Is Fred a welfare program for the aerospace contractors, or a platform for science work? If the former, we should put it in the HHS budget. If the latter, we should look at buying from whoever is cheapest and most dependable. If that is the Soviets, so be it. -- Russ Cage Ford Powertrain Engineering Development Department Work: itivax.iti.org!cfctech!fmeed1!cage (CHATTY MAIL NOT ANSWERED HERE) Home: russ@m-net.ann-arbor.mi.us (All non-business mail) Member: HASA, "S" division.
cage@fmeed1.UUCP (Russ Cage) (11/03/90)
First, pardon for the previous near-flame. In article <6930@hub.ucsb.edu> 3001crad@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Charles Frank Radley) writes: >+Second of all, the LLNL contractors on this DO have a good track >+record in large aerospace systems. > >So do the Freedom contractors....... Then the question to be asked is, does this make a difference? Where are the actual decisions being made? To answer that, look at all the original proposals for the space station. They looked almost identical, regardless of contractor. NASA had already decided what the design would be, and thus what the "winning" design could look like; the contractors had no say. Given that the drive behind the design for Fred came from NASA and not Boeing, it stands to reason that Boeing's track record in aerospace systems will not assist in producing a working product; their ingenuity and know-how has been subordinated. It is not an engineering problem, it is a management problem. LLNL could probably produce just as good and cheap a product using Boeing as McD-D, again because of management philosophy. (But it would mean fewer bucks for Boeing. Then again, there is the possibility of repeat business if it was cheap enough; ESA might buy one, especially if it could go up on Ariane.) >Don't you think LLNL will go through similar cost increases as >reality starts to dawn, and the magnitude of the task is truly >appreciated ? "Reality dawning" assumes that some difficult-to-rectify mistakes have been made. Fred is going through this with the EVA problem. I think it is a bit presumptuous to assume that LLNL will make the same mistakes as today's NASA; they're more like Von Braun's NASA. >> Proposing untried NiH batteries which have no advantage over > >existing ones; >+ These batteries provide more power for less weight. This >+results in cost savings which most people think is an advantage. > >proposing untried amorphous silicon cells with > >dubious qualification prospects and admitting conventional >> cells woulBd be just as good and less risky; > >But the NiH and solar celss are not space qualified, and they >underestimate the qual costs, which could wipe out the saving. >And they may never pass qual. It could be a valid R & D program, >I simply object to LLNL trying to sell it as being cheap and off >the shelf. If LLNL has allowed enough extra in the launch-weight budgets for replacements, the premature deterioration of the batteries or solar panels would be dealt with by replacing them. The older, heavier, previously-qualified hardware could be used for such replacements. If replacement is not required, a newer, lighter, cheaper technology is qualified by default and at a cost savings. >No it is worse, if they fail and Freedom is cancelled, we waste >decades, it will take that long to rebuild a manned space >program. So put Fred on hold. It's certain that the time can be used to fix some of the nasty design problems (excessive EVA, etc.) which have surfaced. The more of these which are fixed before metal is bent, the better and cheaper the result will be if it turns out that it is indeed the better choice. >Oh come on, the Delta is an unmanned ELV, there are no manned >spacecraft designed to fly on delta. And developing a new >manned spacecraft is not cheap. Don't tell me that has been >factored into the cost too. Perhaps we should buy Soyuz's, they're certainly cheap and it is proven that useful work can be done with them. We don't need to mate them with a Delta, we can buy SL-4's. >But again, Titan is expensive, no cheaper than shuttle. Don't >tell me they have included costs of Titans in their plan. This >really is getting very far fetched. Allen quoted a number of an additional $500 million to use Titan IV instead of HL-Delta. Do you have a problem with this? (This number must have included several launches.) >Wrong again. Titan is no cheaper than Shuttle. Delta is too >small too launch the LLNL package, so requires a complete >redesign which cancels out the launch cost saving. Titan-IV >with the Centaur< costs as much as Shuttle. And if LLNL has designed to launch in one piece or several, they would not require a re-design to change launchers. (Allen: have they?) >A single Titan-IV launch gives you a tiny space station. More >like a MIR than a Freedom. MIR is a lot cheaper than LLNL. >The whole point of Freedom is its size and capability. LLNL gives >all that away. Mister Radley, it must have been explained to you that the LLNL station is INFLATABLE. It is not launched as a number of rigid tin cans, it ends up at a multiple of its original size. The final station is many times the volume of the payload fairing in which it is launched; this allows it to be sent up in one launch, with one launch risk. This is the big advantage over Fred. Why do you persist in ignoring this crucial distinction? (BTW, if we adopt an extremely conservative working strength of 7500 PSI for the Kevlar fibers and a density of 2 gm/cc, the weight of an entire 15 foot diameter by 60 foot long segment is only 7944 lbs for the walls, and the volume is only 64 cubic feet. I'm sure I have radically under-stated the strength of Kevlar; I assumed UTS of 30 KPSI and a safety factor of 4. This shows some of the potential for space and weight savings.) >I will not dispute those probabilities, other people arrive at >different numbers. The point of failure rate predictions like >that is as an inspiration to work on the causes and fix them. This is another curious statement, Allen. The man states that point-of-failure predictions are an inspiration to work on the cause. In this case, the cause is the unreliability of the launcher (Shuttle) and the dependence of the station's orbit on the launch schedule (too many slips and it re-enters). Despite this, it was Congress which told NASA to consider launchers other than Shuttle to assist with launching Freedom, rather than NASA or Boeing suggesting it to Congress. Mister Radley, are you sure you are doing your job properly? Are you prevented from doing so by the project management, or are these oversights and omissions the fault of the workers? Why haven't you considered using alternate launchers? >That is why the number was generated. You don't just close your >eyes and pray...! Reliability predictions are design tools, not >forecasts of doom. Again, an odd statement. It has been shown that another launch moratorium such as the one following Challenger would cause the re-entry of Fred, er, Freedom. Yet management has closed its eyes and prayed that this will not happen. Tell us, Charles, just what are NASA/Boeing planning to do to prevent the re-entry of Freedom in the case of the Shuttle being grounded again? > The point is you are not able to quote probabilities for LLNL >because there is no meaningful test data and hence no failure >rate data, so a responsible engineer has to assume high failure >rates until proven otherwise. For some reason which I do not >understand, you seem to assume the failure rates for LLNL will be >low. Despite a random coin failing to give me heads 50% of the time, I can rely on 10 tosses to give me at least 1 head with a 99.9% reliability. If 1 head is all I need, my success rate is 99.9%. LLNL eliminates failures by eliminating launches. If Shuttle has a 2% failure rate, 28 launches are required, and 1 failure scuttles the project, there is a 57% chance of success. If the LLNL HLV has a 10% chance of failure and 1 launch is required, it has 90% chance of success ON THE FIRST LAUNCH. If a second launch is reserved in case the first fails, the chance of success rises to 99%. These are much better odds. NASA seems to have no fallback position in case of a failure. This means that the total probability of success is the product of all the sub-project successes; one failure means the entire project fails. -- Russ Cage Ford Powertrain Engineering Development Department Work: itivax.iti.org!cfctech!fmeed1!cage (CHATTY MAIL NOT ANSWERED HERE) Home: russ@m-net.ann-arbor.mi.us (All non-business mail) Member: HASA, "S" division.
schaper@pnet51.orb.mn.org (S Schaper) (11/05/90)
-40*F with a wind chill off the scale (more than -80* can't be measured
because
human skin freezes too rapidly to measure) sure is interesting.
I just discovered that I live further north than Henry, and I'm in the
lower fourty-eight.
What _am_ I doing up here? :-)
On the other hand, I don't usually worry about a piece of space debris coming
through the roof and exposing me to the prairie winds in January.
Zeitgeist Busters!
UUCP: {amdahl!bungia, uunet!rosevax, chinet, killer}!orbit!pnet51!schaper
ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!schaper@nosc.mil
INET: schaper@pnet51.cts.comsysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) (11/05/90)
In article <29216@boulder.Colorado.EDU>, serre@boulder.Colorado.EDU (SERRE GLENN) writes: >Actually, the question that bothers me most about both the NASA and the >LLNL station is "Why so big?" Since we (the U.S.) seem to have little, if any, >usable experience in launching, assembling, operating, and maintaining space >stations, it seems to me that we would want to start small and build up >incrementally. Like, first we launch a 86' x 16' 8" (this is the max. size of >a Titan IV Payload fairing, by the way) lab, then stick another one on the >first, ... Personally, I think we should can both the NASA and the LLNL >stations and start small. I think the latest mandated redesign by Congress emphasizes a smaller, incremental approach; something like putting up the microgravity research block up there first as a stand-alone design, and adding other modules as you go, as well as making Fred less dependent on shuttle.
aws@ITI.ORG ("Allen W. Sherzer") (11/06/90)
In article <29216@boulder.Colorado.EDU> you write: >Actually, the question that bothers me most about both the NASA and the >LLNL station is "Why so big?" I won't speak for Freedom. The reason for LLNL are to meet design requirements. LLNL provides artificial gravity and so needs to be big enough to provide it. At the same time, the incrimental cost of more space is so cheap, why not? >Since we (the U.S.) seem to have little, if any, >usable experience in launching, assembling, operating, and maintaining space >stations, it seems to me that we would want to start small and build up >incrementally. Agreed. If other viable alternatives are out there, I would be glad to push for them. LLNL seems to be the best thought out way to get us permanently up there. In addition, the LLNL Lunar base would begin to provide cheap fuel at LEO. This will be needed to establish a real infastructure. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Allen W. Sherzer| I had a guaranteed military sale with ED-209. Renovation | | aws@iti.org | programs, spare parts for 25 years. Who cares if it | | | works or not? - Dick Jones, VP OCP Security Concepts |
n8035388@unicorn.wwu.edu (Worth Henry A) (11/06/90)
In article <9011030347.AA24173@iti.org> aws@ITI.ORG ("Allen W. Sherzer") writes: > >And therein lies a large part of the problem. NASA should try and make space >pay and show a profit. THAT's the way to make it take off. As long as we Alas, NASA is a government agency, and as such has little interest in, and has numerous disincentives towards, making space pay (except for its subcontractors ;-) ). On the other hand, an independent agency exchanging project participation rights and preferential techology access to contributing countries and COMPANIES, could be structured to make space pay. Such an agency could be authorized to generate revenues by pioneering space services and even entering into joint space-related ventures. Initally, such an agency would be dependent upon government contributions, but if successful, could later rely upon revenues and private contributors. If unsuccessful, it would eventually lose support and die. In the short term, such an agency would offer the space faring nations (and the wanna-be's, as well) a more effective and affordable alternative to NASA, ESA, ... Hmm, perhaps the UCB regents could sponsor such an agency as an spin-off of their LLNL! If UNIX, why not a space station... with declining weapons R&D revenues, LLNL could use a new line of business ;-). And, even if Congress is unwilling to provide funds, ESA and Japan Inc. might be interested in a joint effort: > the LLNL habitat should fit within the payload parameters of one the Ariane series boosters > HERMES could be used for crew support, and the Japanese mini-shuttle for logistic support ... > perhaps the budget-straped Soviets would like to get involved as an alternative to MIR-II, providing additional alternatives (i.e. redundancies) for launch services and a wealth of orbital experience ... (MIR-I could even be used as one of the LLNL proposal's seperate micro-gravity labs) NASA is not the only game in town, if we (i.e. the USA) wait for Captial Hill, we are going to end up choking on the others' dust -- er. rocket exhuast. > >NASA needs to be open to new ways of doing things. It needs to comit itself >to reducing launch costs and opening up markets. > AMEN, BUT... >> When FRED is finally cancelled, many in Washington (and elsewhere) will >>begin asking why we need the shuttle, yet alone a space program. > >Just because somebody questions the Shuttle doesn't mean they question >the entier program. Some of the most pro-space people I know question >the Shuttle. After all, why are we wasting the billions we spend on it >when there are so many cheaper alternatives? > Don't forget the lessons of the post-Apollo era... Unfortunately, the program as a whole tends to ride on the "shirt tails" of the big projects. Sen. Gore, et. al. are already making the "I strongly support NASA, BUT -- " speeches (btw, Gore is a leading presidential aspirant :-( ). NASA will survive (agencies are never scrapped outright -- too much pork), but that may well be without any significant space program, manned or otherwise.
aws@ITI.ORG ("Allen W. Sherzer") (11/07/90)
This is becomming less a discussion of LLNL's plan and more of the problems with Freedom. In addition, it is clear that Freedom as currently envisioned will never be built. Congress will not pay for it. Therefore this will be my last reply (nothing new is being said anyway). Mr. Radley is welcome to have the last word. In article <2658@polari.UUCP> crad@polari.UUCP (Charles Radley) writes: >+1. Using the LLNL as a Freedom replacement is NOT part of the >+ Great Exploration. >- >Many people are touting LLNL as a replacement to Freedom. My preference is to let them fight it out. Fund both until one is up and working then kill the other. A little competition goes a long way. >+1. The price of large new engineering projects cannot be predicted >+ in advance. >I never said that. I said LLNL has no track record, so their >projections are questionable. BTW, how many space stations has your employer built? If the answer is not at least 3 then I would say you don't have a track record either. >+Again, according to the original schedule, Freedom was to be >+permanently crewed in 91 (next year) at a cost+ of $8B. >You quote feasibility study estimates as guarantees, which they never >were. No I quote the original cost and schedule as provided to Congress in 1984. >+ Maybe the schedules havn't changed, but that doesn't mean they can >+be met. Example: Freedom will use 27 Shuttle flights for assembly >+over five years. You don't seriously think that can be done do you? >First element launch date is not dependent on flight rates, and that >date is very realistic. The Shuttle manifest has about 40 flights on it before Freedom. They are assuming a flight rate of 10 per year. Nobody outside NASA seriously thinks this is possible. If flies in the face of the past ten years experience. A realistic rate would be four per year which means that when Freedom FEL comes up there will be TWENTY flights ahead of you. Is Freedom going to tell those people to take a hike? >At least Freedom's schedule is based on >a vehicle which exists, No. Freedom's schedule is based on a hypothetical reusable spacecraft which flies ten times a year for $200M per flight. That vehicle does not exist in any form. It will not exist when Freedom is launched. >LLNL is making extravagent promises based on >an HLV which has not even been designed, let alone flown. The HLV on the other hand has 90% of its design completed. A number of experts have said it was viable and they had no doubt that MDAC and Martin could build them. For example, when Mr. Charles Radley was asked what doubts he had about these vehicles he said: "I have no doubt MDAC and Martin can deliver those [HLVs].[1]" [1] Article <2658@polari.UUCP> toward the end >+They have been political because NASA didn't listen to Congress >+in the design. Congress wanted a microgravity research facility. >Really ? Yes. >If so then why in other posts do you talk about providing >artifical gravity on LLNL ? That makes microgravity research >impossible ! Actually, it makes micorgravity better. By putting the microgravity facility in a crew-tended free flyer it won't be subjected to the vibration which Freedom will subject it to. >It also makes studies of biological effects of zero-g impossible. You could add a zero-G module in the middle if you want. Or if the LLNL station demonstrates the viability of the concept you can build large 0G stations for a very very small amount of money. >Micro-g and life sciences are Freedom's forte'. Louis J. Lanzerotti, of the Augustine commission, recently said in testimony before the Senate space subcommittee [2]: I feel it is my responsibility to advise [Congress] of our continuing concern about the utility of the space station if it proceeds as currently planned. Current proposals for space station Freedom suggest that it may not be of oprimum use to the two primary communities for which it is intended - life science and microgravity sciences. [2] Avation Week, Oct. 22,1990 page 25 >+Question: Congress is mandating that Freedom's dependance on the Shuttle >+and unrealistic launch rates end in the next redesign. Is this a political >+or technical reason? >Can you substantiate that statement ? David Anderman says you are >mistaken. Nothing in the current session language mandated that. Oh yes. See the above quoted Avation week article or the front page of Space News from the same week. You will be directed to do a redesign in 90 days to minimize dependance on Shuttle, use expendables, and assume reasonable Shuttle launch rates. They are recommending that you build a set of smaller modules which can be integrated on Earth and launched in one piece. A crew-tended microgravigy facility will be first followed by a small habitation module, a life science module, and finally another habitation module. I hear the Europeans are going the same route. This will be the final form of Freedom. If you go with something much different, Congress won't pay for it. Some will call this micromanagement but here it is needed. To quote Thomas Paine: The space station project faces mounting technical problems, soaring costs, unrealistic dependence on regular shuttle flights and declining public support. The program's basic assumption that regularly scheduled, economical high capacity shuttle launchings can be counted upon is no longer reasonable. The current space station program is no longer endorsed by most scientisis and is delaying, not advancing, the Presidents SEI goals. Now if this redesign happens, I would tend to support it (provided commercial needs are met). >Space qualifying and man-rating are not the same. They are not >subjective, but are clearly defined methodologies. So tell me, what is the value of man rating when man rated systems end up being no safer but four times as expensive as the non-man rated ones? >You mean they will design, build and fly twelve precursor (Gemini) >spacecraft to develop the technology, Yep. Those missions have already been flown (the program was called Gemini). That knowledge didn't just erase itself you know. >then fly five unmanned >prototypes, then four incremental manned mission before deciding >to GO FOR IT.....in three years and all for $ 1 B, right ? The station flies up unmanned and inflates itself. When the environment is OK, people go on board. What's wrong with this? >+Yep it has. Tell me, in 90 $$ how much does an Apollo capsule >+cost? >The tooling for Apollo has been destroyed, and there are very few >drawings left. Apollo's cannot be built for all the tea in China. >You will have to build a new vehicle. You didn't answer my question. How much in 90 $$ does an Apollo CM cost? Please provide a source. After all, how can we estimate the true cost of developing a suitable capsule without looking at past experience? >200 M gives you Titan-III. Titan-IV is $ 300-400 M. Nope. A Titan III costs $125M list (Avation Week Jan 8, 1990 page 43). A Titan IV is less than 200M (150M according to Tech. Review). >Shuttle estimates depend on launch rates, highest I have seen is $ 600 M. That's on the low end of reasonable. Still three times the cost of the Titan IV which lifts just as much. >+Again, can you be more specific? When McDonnell Douglas says they >+can cluster Deltas to lift a 100K pound payload for $500M in three >+years on what do you base your belief that it can't be done? When >+Martin Marrietta makes similar claims about the Titan, why are they >+wrong? What error in costing did they make? >- >I have no doubt MDAC and Martin can deliver those. Well I'm glad to see we did close one issue. We agree that the HLV is a pretty low risk thing to do (otherwise you would have doubts). >Two Titans gives a very small assembly, compared to Freedom, it gives >you a rather expensive Skylab equivalent. Two Titans gives you more interior room than Freedom. >Interesting idea, unfortunately four of the five references you >posted appear to be internal LLNL and contractor reports, which I >cannot obtain through University of California library system. Why not write LLNL and ask them? >Pads 40 and 41 are already in use by USAF and commercial users. The >launch rates you quote require at least one new additional pad. Yes the pads are in use. That doesn't mean they are unavailbe all the time. According to OTA, no new pads are needed to achieve this launch rate. At current launch rates we have way more expendable capacity than we have Shuttle capacity. That's why Congress in mandating the use of expendables. Finally, I note that Mr. Radley has not made any major points against the LLNL approach. His only complaint, testing, is invalid because LLNL does do testing using methodologies considered adaaquate for Apollo. Mr. Radley has given no detailed assessment of why LLNL testing methodology is flawed for the level of risk assumed and his other comments indicate that he doesn't understand how the program works. Since I have not doubt that Mr. Radley is an honorable and intelligent person, I would hope he would take the trouble to read up on the LLNL approach. Read what they have published and ask them your questions. You may be suprised at the answers. Allen -- +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ |Allen W. Sherzer| I had a guaranteed military sale with ED-209. Renovation | | aws@iti.org | programs, spare parts for 25 years. Who cares if it | | | works or not? - Dick Jones, VP OCP Security Concepts |
baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov (Ron Baalke) (11/07/90)
In article <1990Nov4.062813.29481@zoo.toronto.edu> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <0093F2DB.F2D56F60@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU> sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) writes: >>>>building a large platform which people can live and work in... >>> >>>Quite true. Of course, by this standard, most of the NASA centers involved >>>in the space station are incompetent for the job too, since only one (MSFC) >>>has ever built anything like this before... >> >>JPL qualifies. ... > >??? They've never built a manned spacecraft at all, and as far as I recall >offhand they have zero experience in "large platform" work. Their normal >line of work -- unmanned deep-space exploration -- is as far from space >stations as you can get and still be in space. >-- JPL is involved with the Space Station program. A JPL Systems Office has been opened in Reston, Virginia to support the Space Station. The office is made up of a professional staff hired from around the Washington, D.C. area, and from JPL employees relocated from Pasadena. JPL had traditionally worked with unmanned deep space mission, and will continue to do so, but it also expected expand their experience base to support nonrobotic spaceflight components by being involved with the Space Station and the Space Exploration Initiative. Specifically, JPL will be working with the station's communciations and tracking system, including ensuring the integrity of the design as it relates to the entire end-to-end space to ground communications systems. JPL is also developing a derivative of the Spacelab Drop Physics Module for the Space Station. ___ _____ ___ /_ /| /____/ \ /_ /| | | | | __ \ /| | | | Ron Baalke | baalke@mars.jpl.nasa.gov ___| | | | |__) |/ | | |___ Jet Propulsion Lab | baalke@jems.jpl.nasa.gov /___| | | | ___/ | |/__ /| M/S 301-355 | |_____|/ |_|/ |_____|/ Pasadena, CA 91109 |
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (11/08/90)
In article <1990Nov6.234925.26062@jato.jpl.nasa.gov> baalke@mars.UUCP (Ron Baalke) writes: >>??? They've never built a manned spacecraft at all, and as far as I recall >>offhand they have zero experience in "large platform" work. Their normal >>line of work -- unmanned deep-space exploration -- is as far from space >>stations as you can get and still be in space. > >JPL is involved with the Space Station program... Quite true. However, they still have zero experience with flying real manned hardware, which is what this particular branch of the discussion was about. -- "I don't *want* to be normal!" | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology "Not to worry." | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
dlbres10@pc.usl.edu (Fraering Philip) (11/09/90)
In article <8580@fmeed1.UUCP> cage@fmeed1.UUCP (Russ Cage) writes:
RC>Show me anything like SSX which has flown even 2 flights, and
RC>come within a factor of 2 of its cost target.
Well, for starters, Max Hunter, SSX's main proponent, says that it is
less complex than a major airliner. _And_ I have read that the same
energy involved in launching something into low orbit is about the same
as sending it to Australia via airplane, due to the fact that the
airplane spends all of its time down in the soup.
Phil cage@fmeed1.UUCP (Russ Cage) (11/09/90)
In article <DLBRES10.90Nov8115446@pc.usl.edu> dlbres10@pc.usl.edu (Fraering Philip) writes: >In article <8580@fmeed1.UUCP> russ@m-net.ann-arbor.mi.us (Russ Cage) writes: >RC>Show me anything like SSX which has flown even 2 flights, and >RC>come within a factor of 2 of its cost target. >Well, for starters, Max Hunter, SSX's main proponent, says that it is >less complex than a major airliner. 1.) Has it flown? No. 2.) Has it come within 2x its cost targets? Unbuilt, so we don't know. I am still waiting for an example meeting my criteria. SSX is not an example, having not bent metal yet, much less having flown. As such, it cannot be given as an example of a reusable vehicle which is cost-competitive with expendables. IF it meets its design criteria, it MIGHT, but that has yet to be demonstrated. Expendables have much higher certainty in their life-cycle costs (due to the vagaries of refurbishment being eliminated), so it is much easier to give firm numbers. -- Russ Cage Ford Powertrain Engineering Development Department Work: itivax.iti.org!cfctech!fmeed1!cage (CHATTY MAIL NOT ANSWERED HERE) Home: russ@m-net.ann-arbor.mi.us (All non-business mail) Member: HASA, "S" division.
dlbres10@pc.usl.edu (Fraering Philip) (11/13/90)
The following exchange has taken place: Russ Cage: Russ Cage had written: RC>Show me anything like SSX which has flown even 2 flights, and RC>come within a factor of 2 of its cost target. And I had responded: PF>Well, for starters, Max Hunter, SSX's main proponent, says that it is PF>less complex than a major airliner. To which Russ said: RC>1.) Has it flown? No. RC>2.) Has it come within 2x its cost targets? Unbuilt, so we don't know. And goes on in a similar fashion, best summarized by his summary line: RC>Summary: SSX is still a paper vehicle, and cannot be compared to expendables. You don't get it. I am saying that we should put our trust in people who have had success with launch technology before. Like Hunter, who allegedly built the Delta, which everyone talks about as a raging economic success. SSX basically has the same payload-to-weight ratio as Delta, but is reusable. Twenty years of advances in _structures_ (and computer design, computer control, manufacturing advances, and aerodynamics ought to enable us to use the H-2 or RL-10 in a reusable manner. It's not operational now, but if we start on it now we might have an operational vehicle by the time Freedom goes up. And given probable design changes in Freedom, such as the downsizing of the modules which might be about to take place due to center-of-gravity restraints on the shuttle (even a stripped full-size module allegedly fails this), Freedom could launch on SSX and the Shuttle, and we would have a backup system for the station. Phil