How to Avoid Repeating the Debacle That Was the Space Shuttle • Hacker News Board

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

#51

Post by cfgvjkljhgfb » Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 12:53 PM UTC

arethuza wrote: post #46

pavlov wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Arguements about government ownership of EADS aside - the important part is that ESA is free to launch on Ariane, Soyuz, Chinese or any other rocket without it becoming a congressional matter.

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

#52

Post by jellicle » Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 12:57 PM UTC

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…

> No government agency with control over space. Outsource everything.

Because that has worked so well with defense contracting.

All you end up with is 1-2 corporations with the knowledge necessary to compete on space projects, and contracts that alternate back and forth between the two, and a budget that includes not only money to go to space but also money to fund a set of corporate executives and corporate lobbying and corporate private jets and so on.

Highest paid person at NASA - about $200,000/year (flies coach)

Highest paid person at Lockheed - about $50,000,000/year (doesn't even count the corporate jets)

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

#53

Post by cfgvjkljhgfb » Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 1:02 PM UTC

wisty wrote: post #27

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…

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…

NASA was told to build something that was pointless - a LEO satelite delivery system with 7 crew.

It's like being asked to design a 20 seater minivan. Then discovering your only customers are Mormon families on the school run and the Army - then trying to build something that fits both their requirements.

Then being told that it must use a engine built in Hawaii and be assembled in Alaska.

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

#54

Post by onemoreact » Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 1:12 PM UTC

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.)

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 reusable shutte to LEO. The real question is could NASA build such a ship? IMO, that's really just a question of would congress fund such a ship?

PS: The space shuttle's never left the R&D stage. Practicly every flight change some significant internal system. If they had simply said "these are good enough" then the program would have been far cheaper.

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

#55

Post by Zumzoa » Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 1:56 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #38

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…

>there is a lot of interesting exploration and science that NASA could continue to do that no profit incentive exists for (deep space probes, space telescopes, etc.), A lot of the historical "voyages of discovery" were financed by rich people looking for glory, newspapers looking for exclusive stories, and companies looking for good PR.

I would first note that more 'voyages of discovery' were prompted by the desire to establish new or improved trade or resource exploration routes, and we've pretty-much established that there's no one to trade with and nothing to exploit within reach.

And I would like to see the cost comparisons, but I'd bet that just as pan-oceanic trips were an order of magnitude more expensive than explorations before, space journeys (especially manned), would require an exceptional economic incentive to be at all viable.

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

#56

Post by lutorm » Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 2:49 PM UTC

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…

So you're implying that the government over-promises and under-delivers, while the private sector under-promises and over-delivers? I would beg to differ. There are as many anecdotal pieces of evidence that shows how wasteful and over-promising private enterprises are (though the over-promising ones are normally not around that long.) There are of course counter examples, but so are there for government (Medicare in the US goverment, many other countries seem to have better functioning governments than the US.)

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

#57

Post by lutorm » Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 2:53 PM UTC

yardie wrote: post #45

cfgvjkljhgfb wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 the…

I think "they" meant SpaceX, not NASA.

Besides, you are incorrect: Atlantis just landed back in Florida, as did most of the shuttles. CA was just the backup landing site, and they often waited a day for weather in Florida to be good rather than land in CA to avoid the hassle of transporting the shuttle cross-country.

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

#58

Post by lutorm » Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 2:55 PM UTC

flocial wrote: post #30

I think the F-35 is a better example. The selling point was re-usable components for three different jets. The only thing soaring are project costs.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the F-35 is built by Lockheed-Martin, not by the government.

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

#59

Post by berntb » Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 3:35 PM UTC

onemoreact wrote: post #54

berntb wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

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...

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

#60

Post by yardie » Mon, Jul 25, 2011, 3:59 PM UTC

lutorm wrote: post #57

yardie wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 the…

I think "they" meant SpaceX, not NASA. Besides, you are incorrect: Atlantis just landed back in Florida, as did most of the shuttles. CA was just the backup landing site, and they often waited a day for weather in Florida to be good rather than land in CA to avoid the hassle of transporting the shuttle cross-country.

Check your history. California Edwards AFB was the backup landing site but became the primary landing site for most of the early years of the program. A runway was built and maintained in Florida but never used until the 90s.

According to wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle_Landing_Facility, the runway was too good at its job and ended up breaking landing gear. So they spent 6 years sanding it down. But when I was a kid and asked why they landed all the way over there, someone at NASA told me it was the unpredictable Florida weather.