Re: Space Access Update #112 9/19/05

Tom Cuddihy wrote:
> Len wrote:
> [snip]
> >
> > Before Apollo, the conventional wisdom was on the side
> > of on-orbit assembly and propellant loading. IMO, we
> > went down the wrong path.
> Before Shuttle The Conventional Wisdom was that if we built a national
> reusable 'space shuttle,' the cost of access to orbit would go down.
>
> Before Delta IV, the Conventional Wisdom was that LOX/H2 is better than
> LOX/hydrocarbon.
>
> Before the IBM PC and networking, the conventional wisdom was that more
> powerful supercomputers would eventually run the world.
>
> the conventional wisdom is usually way wrong. Even a squirrel finds a
> nut now and then, but The Conventional Wisdom tends to be dumber than
> squirrels when forecasting technology.

I don't disagree that the "Conventional Wisdom" is
often wrong. I was just pointing out that it is
ironic that even the conventional wisdom was quite
the opposite before Apollo. Accordingly, the current
conventional wisdom should not now constitute a
barrier against on-orbit assembly and on-orbit propellant
transfer for deep-space exploration. There should be more
tolerance for alternative approaches.

BTW, the Space Shuttle never had any potential for low
costs. This was foresight, not hindsight. I was one
of the many rather vociferous critics of the shuttle
program, before any contracts were let.
>
> > It is way past the time to correct
> > the infrastructure problem. True enough, this will not
> > happen "automagically" (good word, I like it). However,
> > cheaper launches could help with respect to reforming
> > the infrastructure, as well as following through on an
>
> Infrastructure is something that costs more as it ages, and costs more
> to build the longer you wait to upgrade it.
>
> I.e. the more fluid and responsive your infrastructure is, and the more
> often you upgrade it, the cheaper its use gets. With that in mind, the
> very long timelines a high level reusable vehicle would require to
> design, build, and fly makes the infrastructure worse off in the
> meantime.

I'm not sure what you mean by a high level reusable vehicle.
However, IMO, a reasonably good space transport based upon
current engines and technology could be operating within
four years after getting appropriate funding. The problem
is getting a modest amount of money in the right place--
not technology. The type of space transport that I have
in mind could revolutionize space economics; it would have
nothing to do with advancing component technology.

> On the other hand, the quicker you you can start launching, upgrading,
> and starting designing again, the better off your infrastructure will
> be. That argues for quick and dirty methods to orbit, like ELVs.
> Design, build, fly, upgrade, design, build, fly...much quicker to
> upgrade with a throwaway system like that.
>
I agree that high traffic level is the key. I disagree
that ELVs are likely to permit high traffic levels--even
when the benefits of high traffic level are factored into
ELV costs.

> This is one of the reasons CEV is NOT stipulated to require
> reusability.

Whether or not the CEV is reusable or not is unimportant.
What is important is that the hugh volumes of propellant
required for an effective deep-space exploration program
can be made available in space at low cost. Some of us
maintain that a tanker version of a space transport can
solve this problem; some of us also know of no other way
to solve this problem in any other way that begins to be
economically competitive. That was true in 1960. It is
true now.
>
> They still fly 80s computers on the Shuttles, right? Not to mention the
> thing was designed in the early 70s. If it takes you 10 years to design
> and declare working your reusable vehicle, by the time your first
> commerical satellite was delivered to orbit, the entire infrastructure
> might be obsolete.
>
We are really both moaning about the same problem. IMO,
this problem is basically a management problem. Note that
the F-86 became operational in far less than 10 years.
Ten years prior to the F-86, no one was even thinking
about swept wings or jet engines. The problem is management.
Sure, things are more complex now; but our tools are also
potentially far more effective with respect to doing complex
things much faster. We just do not know how to do--or are
not permitted to do--things as fast as we used to be able
to do things. There are exceptions. Burt Rutan was able
to do Space Ship One quite quickly. I think that some of
the rest of us could have also done an X PRIZE try quite
quickly. We'll never know for sure, because we never had
the money to try. Perhaps the libertarian mantra applies:
Get the government out of the way. A potential alternative
is to persuade the government to use less structured procurment
methods, as recommended by the 1973 Commission on Government
Procurement and as directed in the ignored OMB A-109.

> Tom

Best regards,
Len (Cormier)
PanAero, Inc.
x@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (change x to len)
http://www.tour2space.com

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Deficits no concern?
    ... Economists who are evaluating his statements are saying perhaps 12% ... "crumbling" infrastructure, or creating goodjobsatgoodwages, etc. ... the conventional wisdom is wrong more than ... If they'd spent more on domestic products instead of relying ...
    (rec.crafts.metalworking)
  • Re: Space Access Update #112 9/19/05
    ... Before Shuttle The Conventional Wisdom was that if we built a national ... > the infrastructure problem. ... often you upgrade it, ... If it takes you 10 years to design ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Deficits no concern?
    ... "crumbling" infrastructure, or creating goodjobsatgoodwages, etc. ... Empty speculation, based on vapor, not on facts. ... I hope you're not referring to Richard. ... the conventional wisdom is wrong more than ...
    (rec.crafts.metalworking)
  • Re: Deficits no concern?
    ... bleating about "infrastructure" is just cover. ... "crumbling" infrastructure, or creating goodjobsatgoodwages, etc. ... I hope you're not referring to Richard. ... and conventional wisdom to support what he says about this subject. ...
    (rec.crafts.metalworking)