Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How to Avoid Repeating the Debacle That Was the Space Shuttle

discovermagazine.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 68 posts

Re: How to Avoid Repeating the Debacle That Was the Space Shuttle

#41

Post by berntb »

Retric wrote: post #39
wisty wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem wasn't NASA. The problem was, NASA was told to build something impossible - a cheap and reliable spaceplane. It was many times more complex than anything else ever made (including the Saturn V). It was never going to be cheap and reliable. (Well, it might be possible today, with decades more experience and technology). Only the "yes men" said it was possible, and they got promoted. The rest of the enginee…

They could have built a cheap and reusable space plane. The problem was they built it do far more than was necessary. You can build a "cheap" space-plane that get's 7 people to orbit at around 100-1000$/lb. (by cheap somewhere under 10 million a flight.) You can't build a cheap space plane that hauls up 7 people and 50,000LB of junk into space at back at the same time. If they just focused on people they could have a…

>>You can build a "cheap" space-plane that get's 7 people to orbit at around 100-1000$/lb.

That would push the costs down by a factor of ten, at least. For man-rated space flight!

What is the NASA track record for big projects that push costs down?

(Didn't Burt Rutan have some story of when he built some high altitude air plane on an order -- and the NASA space suit integration team was larger than the team to design and build the aircraft?)

Re: How to Avoid Repeating the Debacle That Was the Space Shuttle

#42

Post by arethuza »

cfgvjkljhgfb wrote: post #23
marze wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since NASA has repeatedly demonstrated its inability to develop a new rocket (something like $21B wasted in failed attempts over the last 20 years), it certainly makes sense to outsource launch services to the free market instead of trying to relive the Apollo era. However, since there is a lot of interesting exploration and science that NASA could continue to do that no profit incentive exists for (deep space probes…

ESA manages to launch telescopes much more complex than Hubble in spite of not owning a single rocket.

In case anyone is wondering, I presume this is a reference to the ESA Herschel telescope launched by Arianespace:

http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Herschel/index.html

Re: How to Avoid Repeating the Debacle That Was the Space Shuttle

#43

Post by pavlov »

cfgvjkljhgfb wrote: post #23
marze wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since NASA has repeatedly demonstrated its inability to develop a new rocket (something like $21B wasted in failed attempts over the last 20 years), it certainly makes sense to outsource launch services to the free market instead of trying to relive the Apollo era. However, since there is a lot of interesting exploration and science that NASA could continue to do that no profit incentive exists for (deep space probes…

ESA manages to launch telescopes much more complex than Hubble in spite of not owning a single rocket.

ESA does have the Ariane 5 rocket:

http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Launchers_Access_to_Space/SEMEUB...

Re: How to Avoid Repeating the Debacle That Was the Space Shuttle

#44

Post by yardie »

stretchwithme wrote: post #5

What amazes me is how uncritically the media usually treats this issue. A great many things the government does follow a similar over-promising, under-delivering pattern. The notion that perception is reality and a loss of confidence is the worst thing that can ever happen conspire to stifle public questioning. We see it with Afghanistan, stimulus spending, TARP. As justifications don't pan out, something else is use…

You grossly overestimate NASA's budget. I believe it gets just a few dollars out of the average tax receipt. In fact you can go here http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/taxes/tax-receipt and see that for a married couple making $80k/year NASA received $10.

Re: How to Avoid Repeating the Debacle That Was the Space Shuttle

#45

Post by yardie »

cfgvjkljhgfb wrote: post #24
econgeeker wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, am I to understand that your position is that NASA is efficient in its spending, and that this who think governments are inefficient (cost wise) at achieving goals are caught up in a "media-hype" that is "antigovernment"? If that is correct, how were SpaceX and Scaled Composites able to do so much with such limited resources?

They didn't have to build components at factories in 50 different states. They didn't have to include secret USAF, CIA, AAA etc requirements in the design. They had a simple goal - get payload to LEO cheaply - not a nebulous goal of 'make America look good in space'

I believe you are confusing NASA, the government organization that is beholden to ~500 representatives and 100 senators, with some other nebulous corporation that does scientific space research.

They did have to build components. Want to know why the shuttle (actually all space missions) took off in florida, were controlled in Alabama, and landed in California. Senators from Alabama, California, and Florida wrote their tender that way.

There is secret then there is ITAR. A lot of astromechanics, guidance and tracking is still under the control of the DOD. They'd have a hard time not going through them.

Goals, just like the, now, International Space Station have a ways of changing. The US thought they could build a permanently manned space station by themselves and even that proved too much.

Re: How to Avoid Repeating the Debacle That Was the Space Shuttle

#46

Post by arethuza »

pavlov wrote: post #43
cfgvjkljhgfb wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ESA manages to launch telescopes much more complex than Hubble in spite of not owning a single rocket.

ESA does have the Ariane 5 rocket: http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Launchers_Access_to_Space/SEMEUB...

From my reading of the relevant wikipedia page is looks like ESA gets the private company EAD Astrium to develop Ariane launchers and Arianespace, which is also a private company, to actually launch them and market them for commercial launches:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariane_%28rocket_family%29

Re: How to Avoid Repeating the Debacle That Was the Space Shuttle

#47

Post by StrawberryFrog »

berntb wrote: post #41
Retric wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could have built a cheap and reusable space plane. The problem was they built it do far more than was necessary. You can build a "cheap" space-plane that get's 7 people to orbit at around 100-1000$/lb. (by cheap somewhere under 10 million a flight.) You can't build a cheap space plane that hauls up 7 people and 50,000LB of junk into space at back at the same time. If they just focused on people they could have a…

>>You can build a "cheap" space-plane that get's 7 people to orbit at around 100-1000$/lb. That would push the costs down by a factor of ten, at least. For man-rated space flight! What is the NASA track record for big projects that push costs down ? (Didn't Burt Rutan have some story of when he built some high altitude air plane on an order -- and the NASA space suit integration team was larger than the team to desig…

> That would push the costs down by a factor of ten, at least. For man-rated space flight!

I don't think so. Those 7 people need all the "junk" up there too. it's their living quarters, their food, their science experiments, etc.

Maybe you launch it separately. But don't forget about the cost of that.

Re: How to Avoid Repeating the Debacle That Was the Space Shuttle

#48

Post by TorKlingberg »

exratione wrote: post #13

This is also a good perspective, albeit old: http://www.spacefuture.com/vehicles/how_the_west_wasnt_won_n... "This country was bounded to the West by a desert. One day a telescope built on one of the country's mountains revealed what looked like sea far away beyond the desert which would have to be crossed in order to discover if there was habitable land on the coast. So the politicians got together and established a…

The whole analogy falls on the simple problem that space is just a lot more difficult than desert. You cannot just put a bunch of poor but adventurous people in a car and tell them there is free land on the moon. The moon is also a lot less hospitable than California.

Re: How to Avoid Repeating the Debacle That Was the Space Shuttle

#49

Post by jsmcgd »

econgeeker wrote: post #8

This article makes a lot of good points, but I felt it failed to really break the surface and address the core problem that led to the failure of the Space Shuttle program. That core problem is misalignment of incentives. Or in short, politics. When you've got a public budget and your goals are political ones, you're going to pursue a specific set of capabilities and policies that help your political career. This is…

Also I think part of the problem is that governments (and business) very often approach an agency or contractor and ask them to produce a design. We know in the software world that big design up front almost guarantees failure as the initial design is invariable flawed.

The agency, contractor or multiple contractors should be asked to produce a number of prototypes over a period of time. What design of reusable spacecraft is the most effective, safe and economical? Who knows? No one has ever done this before! Let's design a process to find out. We shouldn't just punt and cross our fingers.

The common counter argument is that this approach is too expensive but in practice experience shows it's much more expensive not to.

Re: How to Avoid Repeating the Debacle That Was the Space Shuttle

#50

Post by berntb »

StrawberryFrog wrote: post #47
berntb wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>You can build a "cheap" space-plane that get's 7 people to orbit at around 100-1000$/lb. That would push the costs down by a factor of ten, at least. For man-rated space flight! What is the NASA track record for big projects that push costs down ? (Didn't Burt Rutan have some story of when he built some high altitude air plane on an order -- and the NASA space suit integration team was larger than the team to desig…

> That would push the costs down by a factor of ten, at least. For man-rated space flight! I don't think so. Those 7 people need all the "junk" up there too. it's their living quarters, their food, their science experiments, etc. Maybe you launch it separately. But don't forget about the cost of that.

You missed my point -- 100-1000$/lb is at least a factor of ten less than anything else.

(NASA is not noted for going factors of ten less than normal costs.)

Post reply on HN