Re: Russia's Clipper

Damon Hill <damonunoseisuno@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:Xns970FBA2B2E75Bdamon161attbicom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx:

> "Jorge R. Frank" <jrfrank@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> news:Xns970FCAF03D7D9jrfrank@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>
>> Damon Hill <damonunoseisuno@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>> news:Xns970FA710AE9EBdamon161attbicom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>>
>>> fairwater@xxxxxxxxx (Derek Lyons) wrote in
>>> news:437d6b3d.5095860@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>>>
>>>> Damon Hill <damonunoseisuno@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Kliper might be the DC-3 of manned spaceflight.
>>>>
>>>> It's too bad fanciful daydreaming isn't an Olympic event - you'd be
>>>> in the running for the gold.
>>>
>>> I've always preferred optimism; it annoys the pessimists.
>>
>> My prediction: Kliper will exceed neither the shuttle's record annual
>> flight rate (9) or the record number of people carried in one year
>> (58).
>>
>> That's no DC-3. And I don't think it's pessimistic either, based on
>> what I've seen so far about Kliper's capabilities.
>
> So what's your vision for a viable space transportation system?

I don't have one. My vision is for a development approach, not a
particular system. It's not particularly original, either; most of these
are alt.space ideas I've gradually come to accept. Nothing I write below
is new but it may sound surprising coming from me.

First look at the desired end state. Viability (at least by my
definition) requires affordability to the point of profitability, such
that continued survival of the system is not subject to the vagaries of
government funding.

Affordability means minimum total cost of ownership. This cost includes
the recurring operations costs and the development cost amortized over
each flight. It follows that to mimimize cost, flight rate must be
maximized - for that matter, as a first approximation, flight rate is
*everything*. The trivial (<10/year) flight rates achieved so far will
not help. You don't really start seeing the costs go down until the
flight rate approaches triple digits. Southwest Airlines has a
maintenance infrastructure comparable to NASA's standing army for the
shuttle, but they're profitable because they keep their airplanes in the
air. If Southwest had a fleet of four 737s and flew them 4-8 times per
year, a 737 flight would cost as much as a shuttle flight, and only the
government could afford to buy the tickets.

In my opinion, it's simply not possible to achieve those kinds of flight
rates with expendable systems. Near-total reusability is a requirement.
The other aspects of system design (number of stages, HTHL vs VTVL vs
VTHL, wings vs no wings, etc) are important only to the extent that they
affect flight rate.

How do you build an orbital vehicle with a flight rate that high? Short
answer is that right now, I don't know - and neither does anyone else,
though some think they do. Attempting to build one now would be like
trying to build a DC-3 in 1914 - or for that matter, attempting the space
shuttle in 1972. It's not that the technologies aren't there, it's that
the existing technologies are too immature and could use more
development.

How to get there from here? We have vehicles that can fly at those flight
rates, though they fall far short of orbital performance (barely
suborbital, actually). And we have vehicles with orbital performance that
fall far short of the required flight rate. We can start with the former
and gradually increase the performance, or we can start with the latter
and gradually increase the flight rate. In my opinion, though the former
approach is not a sure thing, it is far more likely to succeed than the
latter, which is probably a dead end. To stretch a Henry Spencer analogy
a bit, if you've got big dinosaurs and small mammals and you want big
mammals, you're more likely to succeed by growing your mammals than by
evolving your dinosaurs.

> Do you see any specific projects that might lead to opening up
> human access to at least low orbit?

There are a number of companies building or planning suborbital vehicles
that could achieve the required flight rate. Most of them are well known
to readers of this group. I won't get into listing my favorites since I
predict that would send the thread into holy wars over particular vehicle
designs. I'd prefer to stay focused on development approaches. The
government could encourage growth in this sector by a variety of
approaches, such as market guarantees and prizes. NASA's Centennial
Challenges has a prize in this area (Suborbital Payload Challenge) but in
my opinion it goes in the wrong direction by eliminating the pilot
requirement and by increasing the altitude requirement rather than the
speed requirement. If it were up to me, I'd issue a prize with the exact
same requirements as the X-Prize except with an additional requirement to
achieve a certain minimum speed (or cover a certain downrange distance
that would in turn require a particular speed). More altitude gets us no
closer to orbit, while more speed will encourage the development of TPS
and propulsion technologies that *will* get us closer to orbit.

A more traditional governmental approach that could also work would be to
start building X-planes again, starting from the level of performance of
the X-15 and gradually increasing performance. In fact, that's the path
the US *was* on with the X-15 before Cold War exigencies diverted us onto
the sidetrack of spam-in-a-can atop converted ICBMs. That way lay the
Dark Side - quicker, more expedient development but lower flight rate and
more expensive operations. True, it got us to the moon by 1969 but was so
expensive that the program was abandoned as soon as its Cold War
political objectives were met. It may get us back to the moon by 2020 but
only with a large governmental commitment that only the most naive think
can be politically sustained for that long.

I grow frustrated with people insisting on learning the wrong lessons
from the space shuttle: that reusable vehicles are necessarily more
expensive than expendables, that crew and cargo must be separated, that
wings are bad. The shuttle didn't fail for any of those reasons. It
failed because NASA attempted to go all the way from the X-15 to an
operational reusable orbital vehicle in one jump, because NASA had too
many diverse customers for the vehicle which resulted in many demanding
performance requirements, and because the development budget was capped
too low. The combination of the above caused NASA to first back off from
total reusability, then having to push existing technology too hard to
meet the performance requirements, then making design tradeoffs that
sacrificed flight rate for lower development cost. Had NASA instead
committed, in the post-Apollo environment, to pick up where the X-15 left
off and gradually work its way to orbit, it may well have taken until the
turn of the century for it to get there - but the result would have been
far more economical.

> I don't see any spectacular developments; I'd settle for the
> next level up in capability from expendible small-crew capsules, so
> long as it's sustainable.

I would respectfully submit that you're more likely to get to a
sustainable end-state by settling for the next level up in capability
from reusable suborbital vehicles - whether capsules or not.

> Alas, Shuttle wasn't it. CEV obviously will never be it. I'm hoping
> Kliper will meet some of those capabilities, and become a marketable
> commodity like any large commercial jet aircraft.

Kliper is more reusable than Soyuz, so it's at least a baby step in the
right direction. However, it is an inherently low-flight-rate vehicle
using expendable launch vehicles, which means it's ultimately a dead end
- an attempt to evolve a dinosaur rather than grow a mammal. It's not
even the Curtiss Jenny of space, let alone the DC-3 of space.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Japans Moon Ambitions - Theyre KIDDING, Right ?
    ... and losing vehicles and pilots occasionally ... >> Because of the absurdly low flight rate, and the fact that it's not ... if you want to have low costs. ... >And if reusability is good, why isn't some reusability better than ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: What if we still had Saturn V
    ... orbital launch vehicles as soon as somebody puts up the money to do it. ... Full reusability does not mean they never wear out or need to be repaired. ... Even vehicles that are no longer in production require engineering support ... system cost for a given flight rate. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Russias Clipper
    ... >rates with expendable systems. ... >VTHL, wings vs no wings, etc) are important only to the extent that they ... I'd phrase that as 'flight rate per individual vehicle'. ... We have vehicles that can fly at those flight ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)
  • Re: Cheap Access to Space
    ... Your proposal amounts to the proposition that reusable vehicles are ... Reusable vehicles are going to cost more per pound than ... expendables. ... Just invoking the word reusability does not ensure ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Robert Bigelow to announce $50 million orbital space prize; inflatable modules
    ... >> of refurbishable vehicles. ... of expendables require significantly less flight validation ... Eventual evolution towards reusability is the game plan, ... And I suspect that SpaceX's designs have somewhat less cost ...
    (sci.space.policy)