Re: DIY space transport

"Len" <len@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1121401908.073728.258760@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Pete:
>
> Actually, we are not in disagreement with respect to the value,
> importance, appropriateness, and timing of conceptual design
> versus building something that should never have gotten past
> the drawing board/tube.
>
> Having said that, I am currently extremely enthused about our
> last two (unpublished) design iterations. If either of these pan
> out and live up to my current expectations, then, yes, with
> funding, I would be ready to commit to preliminary design,
> component testing, followed by prototype detailed design,
> fabrication, flight test and initial operation as an operational
> prototype based upon one of these new (related) concepts. True,
> any design can always be improved (the Wright Brothers
> should never have flown until they had a better design).
> However, a space transport can be far from perfect and still
> clobber the existing way of doing business. Dutch Kindleberger
> used to say that at some point you have to shoot the engineer.

Indeed. When it comes time to move beyond the drawing board, engineers
that can not move beyond the drawing board need to be shot... Inability
to cut a design off and let it bleed, (as my wife would say), can be
indicative of too long a design cycle. Some make the mistake of leaping
in and bending metal before they are ready, others make the mistake of
not experimenting enough during the design process because they do not
know how to bend metal.

I find that decisions of bending metal verse more conceptual design are
usually obvious and make themselves, so long as the homework has been
done. When the development path of least resistance becomes to bend
metal, then you know it is time to start bending metal. It sounds very
promising that you have reached such a point.

> My reply to Derek's post stems from two emotions:
>
> 1) Strong feelings that parallel yours with respect to the
> importance of conceptual design and the need for far more
> emphasis on conceptual design instead rushing ahead to
> build another "white elephant." I have said for many years
> that the most important technology of all is system-level
> conceptual design--which should be done in many heads
> in as decentralized manner as possible. There is no such
> thing as "duplication," when it comes to system-level
> conceptual design and R&D in general. The tendency of
> the bureaucracy to force R&D into planned categories is
> folly and very destructive. The best system-level conceptual
> design depends only on better packaging of component things
> we already know how to do; and this should be open to as
> many individuals and companies as possible.

It has always seemed to me with regard to space transports that while
there was considerable clever detailed design, no one really knew what
they should be designing for. Probably because design was always a one
off affair and so they never had the opportunity to learn what really
mattered. Kludgy design speaks volumes, a design should speak with
clarity of purpose. It is as if there has been a lack of singular
individuals directly forging such coherent purpose into space transport
designs.

I would still have to say that I do not think there is a current rocket
engine within the right design range let alone a well developed one.
This is not to say that current engines are not workable, just that no
engine has really hit the spot yet. Specifically, a low cost, reliable,
easy to use engine with high ISP and much higher T/W. While not
necessary, such an engine would significantly ease the development of
space transports. Such rocket engine metal bending is long overdue.

> 2) My basic agreement with Derek that, at some point, we
> need to get on with the show--coupled with my current excitement
> over our latest conceptual designs.

Sounds like you are ready. I know that my own thoughts on space
transport design are still bouncing around quite a bit, though I am
starting to get some general design and development principles in place.

> Stand by for further (conceptual) definition of these latest
> ideas. Perhaps realistic reevaluation will dampen this latest
> excitement. But right now, it looks "breakthrough good."
> If and when it continues to look good, I'll publish the new
> concepts on our web site and let others critique them.

I am looking forward to it. :-)

Pete.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: DIY space transport
    ... importance, appropriateness, and timing of conceptual design ... last two design iterations. ... that the most important technology of all is system-level ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: 4 October 1957
    ... design cycles that I feel have generally been ... the conceptual design cycle--which is a shame, ... --for good solid physical reasons that I did not ...
    (sci.space.history)
  • Re: Essential Literature
    ... > conceptual design of the system the code will implement? ... Visual appearance is UI. ... Design is how the moules interoperate. ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)
  • Re: OT. Freedom Of Speech
    ... last ditch design of pure expedience - take a very simple and quick to ... Instant jet fighter, and never mind the ... engine that was inclined to explode in bad landings in the early models. ... they couldn't go in the directions needed to sort things out. ...
    (uk.people.support.depression)
  • Re: Me P.1110 Ente Art
    ... time and reliable engine power. ... It is known the German engine jet reliability and lifetimes were going up, ... if it is a German design Eunometic will find something ... limited to a little over Mach 0.8 to Mach 0.85 while the German ...
    (rec.aviation.military)