I'm convinced chemical rockets is a relative waste of time with pathetic
thrust to weight. We should have done Orion instead of Apollo and could
have owned the entire inner solar system, instead of a transitory moon hop.
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015, 09:59 [Traveller_TNE] <
> wrote:
>
>
> In a message dated 3/6/2015 12:00:27 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> writes:
>
> It's amazing how many false economies we consistently fall for, whether
> it's JSF or the idea of a "reusable" box to carry things to orbit that
> weighs three or four times as much as its contents. When you realize how
> comparable Shuttle was to Saturn V, both about 1/2 billion $ per launch,
> 6.8 million pounds thrust vs. 7.5 million, and realize that S-V could put
> about 2.5 times as much mass into LEO (and for Shuttle only 1/4 of that
> was payload, 3/4 was "reusable" box) and twice as much to the Moon as
> Shuttle could to LEO, the false economies are appalling. If you figure 135
> shuttle launches times the waste mass of the orbiter itself, which was
> almost identical to the mass of Skylab, that's 135 Skylabs we could have
> put up, or almost 24 ISSs.
>
> That's because post-Apollo NASA was a Jobs-Program, not a Space Program.
> A lot of money (for the time) was thrown at beating the Soviets in the
> space race and key Congress-critters made sure they brought some of that
> money home. There was no national political need to push beyond the Moon
> since nobody was going to solve the technical difficulties of getting to
> Mars anytime soon. However, they weren't about to let that gravy train
> end... somehow I don't think the 'reusable39; efficiency argument was the
> primary reason NASA budgeting for the project was approved. Granted iirc
> it led to the Challenger disaster (the boosters had to be shipped by rail
> since they were made in a key C-critters district so O-rings were required
> since the boosters were too long).
>
> While China may push that space race button or some other black swan event
> occurs (making space projects a factor in voting), I'd put my bet that more
> and more of the heavy lifting will be seen on the private sector projects
> in the future. To make space development stick (beyond what we have) I
> think it has to have a direct profit motive beyond snapping up a government
> contract\subsidy. That just isn't going to happen in a government directed
> project... the political nature of the beast creates way too many economic
> mal-incentives. For historical example, the only transcontinental railroad
> not to go bankrupt was the only one not built using public subsidies (the
> Great Northern Railway...now merged into the BNSF Railway). All the other
> transcontinental railways (all major receivers of public funds) went
> belly-up.
>
> It may take a little longer, but I'd rather see profit motive and economic
> self-interest drive space development rather than the government good idea
> fairy getting involved. It's more likely to stick that way.
>
>
thrust to weight. We should have done Orion instead of Apollo and could
have owned the entire inner solar system, instead of a transitory moon hop.
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015, 09:59 [Traveller_TNE] <
> wrote:
>
>
> In a message dated 3/6/2015 12:00:27 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> writes:
>
> It's amazing how many false economies we consistently fall for, whether
> it's JSF or the idea of a "reusable" box to carry things to orbit that
> weighs three or four times as much as its contents. When you realize how
> comparable Shuttle was to Saturn V, both about 1/2 billion $ per launch,
> 6.8 million pounds thrust vs. 7.5 million, and realize that S-V could put
> about 2.5 times as much mass into LEO (and for Shuttle only 1/4 of that
> was payload, 3/4 was "reusable" box) and twice as much to the Moon as
> Shuttle could to LEO, the false economies are appalling. If you figure 135
> shuttle launches times the waste mass of the orbiter itself, which was
> almost identical to the mass of Skylab, that's 135 Skylabs we could have
> put up, or almost 24 ISSs.
>
> That's because post-Apollo NASA was a Jobs-Program, not a Space Program.
> A lot of money (for the time) was thrown at beating the Soviets in the
> space race and key Congress-critters made sure they brought some of that
> money home. There was no national political need to push beyond the Moon
> since nobody was going to solve the technical difficulties of getting to
> Mars anytime soon. However, they weren't about to let that gravy train
> end... somehow I don't think the 'reusable39; efficiency argument was the
> primary reason NASA budgeting for the project was approved. Granted iirc
> it led to the Challenger disaster (the boosters had to be shipped by rail
> since they were made in a key C-critters district so O-rings were required
> since the boosters were too long).
>
> While China may push that space race button or some other black swan event
> occurs (making space projects a factor in voting), I'd put my bet that more
> and more of the heavy lifting will be seen on the private sector projects
> in the future. To make space development stick (beyond what we have) I
> think it has to have a direct profit motive beyond snapping up a government
> contract\subsidy. That just isn't going to happen in a government directed
> project... the political nature of the beast creates way too many economic
> mal-incentives. For historical example, the only transcontinental railroad
> not to go bankrupt was the only one not built using public subsidies (the
> Great Northern Railway...now merged into the BNSF Railway). All the other
> transcontinental railways (all major receivers of public funds) went
> belly-up.
>
> It may take a little longer, but I'd rather see profit motive and economic
> self-interest drive space development rather than the government good idea
> fairy getting involved. It's more likely to stick that way.
>
>