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

61–68 of 68 posts

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

#61

Post by onemoreact »

berntb wrote: post #59
onemoreact wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I expect they would still blow a lot on R&D. However, rocket fuel for a small craft is not that expencive so it's really a question of how much inspection / repare the vehicle needs. A light craft could reinter the atmosphere with minimal heating, and you can build reasonably efficent but vary simple rocket engines so there is plenty of room to simplyfy matence. So, in theory we chould build a fairly cheap and reusab…

>>could NASA build such a ship? IMO, that's really just a question of would congress fund such a ship? Sigh. To repeat a trivial point for the third time... You have the opinion that NASA after 1970 could do any large project and push costs down by a factor of ten. If a serious argument could be made, then one of the NASA fan boys would have posted it...

It's a question of incentives. The costs of sending 100 people up instead of the normal crew of 7 and a lot of cargo on a shuttle mission would have been minimal. However, there was no real point to sending that many people into space at the same time and the risk from failure would have been insane.

So if there was some need for thousands of people to be sent into space per year then NASA could design and operate a fairly low cost per launch system. However, once they started operating highly capable but delicate system added to the fact there was little value in sending more than a token number of people into space in a given year then costs are going to spiral out of control even if the desgin was reasonable.

PS: I have even heard the argument that NASA benefited from the amount of spectacle involved in the shuttle program. If they had built something that looked and operated like a 747 nobody would have cared but build something that takes thousands of controlled explosions and then sit’s on a huge ball of fire into space and wow you must be doing something important.

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

#62

Post by berntb »

onemoreact wrote: post #61
berntb wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>could NASA build such a ship? IMO, that's really just a question of would congress fund such a ship? Sigh. To repeat a trivial point for the third time... You have the opinion that NASA after 1970 could do any large project and push costs down by a factor of ten. If a serious argument could be made, then one of the NASA fan boys would have posted it...

It's a question of incentives. The costs of sending 100 people up instead of the normal crew of 7 and a lot of cargo on a shuttle mission would have been minimal. However, there was no real point to sending that many people into space at the same time and the risk from failure would have been insane. So if there was some need for thousands of people to be sent into space per year then NASA could design and operate a…

>>if there was some need for thousands of people to be sent into space per year then NASA could design and operate a fairly low cost per launch system.

For the second time to you (4th time overall) -- uh... no. That account is less than two weeks old. I am probably being trolled.

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

#63

Post by onemoreact »

berntb wrote: post #62
onemoreact wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a question of incentives. The costs of sending 100 people up instead of the normal crew of 7 and a lot of cargo on a shuttle mission would have been minimal. However, there was no real point to sending that many people into space at the same time and the risk from failure would have been insane. So if there was some need for thousands of people to be sent into space per year then NASA could design and operate a…

>>if there was some need for thousands of people to be sent into space per year then NASA could design and operate a fairly low cost per launch system. For the second time to you (4th time overall) -- uh... no. That account is less than two weeks old. I am probably being trolled.

That's a strong dismissal with little evidence to back it up. I am not saying that I expect NASA to become a lean organization tomorrow, just that there incentives are all messed up.

Anyway, you might think that government organizations are always full of bloat but compare the SSA with your 401k and you will find they are vary low overhead. The problem with government organizations is they tend to make really big a stupid decisions for political reasons, aka if SSA had invested in a mix of stocks and bonds vs. US treasury bonds people would be talking about how over funded it was right now. Instead the SSA “surplus” was used to subsidize government borrowing and treated as yet another agency.

PS: I have 64 Karma on a 2 week old act that may suggest something about my activities. If you actually have something meaningful to say feel free to support your argument, but right now I am feeling trolled.

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

#64

Post by berntb »

onemoreact wrote: post #63
berntb wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>if there was some need for thousands of people to be sent into space per year then NASA could design and operate a fairly low cost per launch system. For the second time to you (4th time overall) -- uh... no. That account is less than two weeks old. I am probably being trolled.

That's a strong dismissal with little evidence to back it up. I am not saying that I expect NASA to become a lean organization tomorrow, just that there incentives are all messed up. Anyway, you might think that government organizations are always full of bloat but compare the SSA with your 401k and you will find they are vary low overhead. The problem with government organizations is they tend to make really big a s…

11 days, to be specific. All the trolls get some karma, I think you are marked as new accounts below 50 now? If you aren't a troll, don't repeat claims without answering people's points from a new account.

A link re the Shuttle: http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2011/07/lunch-wi...

Bye.

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

#65

Post by kingkawn »

stretchwithme wrote: post #28
kingkawn wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would think that the people are hacker news of all places would not get caught up in media-hype trends about how all government spending is waste bla bla. NASA tried to change the paradigm of space travel. It didn't work the way they'd hoped, but that's the risk of trying something different. Comparing it to TARP and Afghanistan is a ridiculous non sequitur that only works if you buy into the anti-government yammer…

Its not based on media hype. If you've had personal dealings with the government, you'd notice that it takes weeks and several people that the private sector does with a single web form. Its obvious that even software development is bloated beyond belief with no pressure to actually be responsible with the people's money. From what I can observe, there are plenty of people that believe what politicians say. And that'…

"Its obvious that even software development is bloated beyond belief with no pressure to actually be responsible with the people's money."

Of course there are portions of government programs that aren't working right. Like all things. I know mostly the healthcare world, so I'll draw an example from there:

Medicare uses about 3-5% of its money on overhead. Private insurers use between 15-30%. The insurance company has really well designed brochures, snappy sales pitches, and coverage that varies in quality so broadly that it is unbelievable. On the whole medicare is far more responsible with the money it receives, and provides significantly more efficient service.

How does this jibe with the world view you are presenting?

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

#66

Post by StrawberryFrog »

onemoreact wrote: post #61
berntb wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>could NASA build such a ship? IMO, that's really just a question of would congress fund such a ship? Sigh. To repeat a trivial point for the third time... You have the opinion that NASA after 1970 could do any large project and push costs down by a factor of ten. If a serious argument could be made, then one of the NASA fan boys would have posted it...

It's a question of incentives. The costs of sending 100 people up instead of the normal crew of 7 and a lot of cargo on a shuttle mission would have been minimal. However, there was no real point to sending that many people into space at the same time and the risk from failure would have been insane. So if there was some need for thousands of people to be sent into space per year then NASA could design and operate a…

> If they had built something that looked and operated like a 747 nobody would have cared

I don't entirely agree. With a space program that "looked and operated like a 747" - assuming you mean a relatively routine and reliable spaceplane where the launches are less of a spectacle - you'd get a lot of people and hardware in space, and people would have cared about that.

I guess it's harder to get people excited about results than about spectacles, but it can be done, and it lasts longer.

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

#67

Post by StrawberryFrog »

berntb wrote: post #50
StrawberryFrog wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.)

Oops, my mistake.

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

#68

Post by onemoreact »

berntb wrote: post #64
onemoreact wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a strong dismissal with little evidence to back it up. I am not saying that I expect NASA to become a lean organization tomorrow, just that there incentives are all messed up. Anyway, you might think that government organizations are always full of bloat but compare the SSA with your 401k and you will find they are vary low overhead. The problem with government organizations is they tend to make really big a s…

11 days, to be specific. All the trolls get some karma, I think you are marked as new accounts below 50 now? If you aren't a troll, don't repeat claims without answering people's points from a new account. A link re the Shuttle: http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2011/07/lunch-wi... Bye.

"Tethers in space, break" for a long number of reasons. NASA has actually tried to use tethers in space several times and found a lot of surprisingly tough issues. One of the least obvious induced current, but read up on it as there is some really interesting engendering involved. So, from the perspective of someone who you want to ride in a tin can at the end of one of these you are really going to need to say, if these break the occupants survive due the ability for each half to reinter the atmosphere, be rescued or whatever.

Now run the numbers for a version of that a reasonable person would actually be willing to live in for a full year and perhaps he would be willing to discuss it. However, a moon base is probably both cheaper and safer.

Post reply on HN