First steps - back to the moon.
Discussion
Simpo Two said:
My dustbin is plastic. It works. I don't need a carbon fibre one... Just because there is new tech doesn't mean you have to use it
And yet, your dustbin is actually "new tech" itself. Almost certainly designed with a 3d CAD program, and the injection molding tooling created via CNC, and the science and development behind reliable thin wall plastic injection moulding at high volumes is considerable (things like strategic local water cooled press sets etc).In the Apollo era (well certainly the start of it) a dustbin was a hand made, individual item. It's cost was not in the materials it was made from (and still isn't) but in it's manufacture. This is why you can now buy a dustbin from Asda or whatever for a couple of £!
So, what any new space launcher needs is the correct application of materials and crucially the manufacturing process to go with and compliment those materials. Any non reusable system requires individual piece costs to fall, requiring modern design & production techniques. Knock 10% off the cost of every part in a launch system and the total program cost savings are incredible!
So, no matter if say the nose cone is made with F1 technology Carbon Fibre, or "kitchen technology" ABS plastic the key to a modern development program is to spend more time optimising components for cost and manufacture, and less actually just designing the part itself. Fortunately, modern design systems do most of the hard work for you, leaving the designer/developer more time to properly think about optimisation ;-)
To get a truely low cost space system, we need to move away from handbuilt high cost construction (milled / rivetted forgings, CNC aircraft grade alluminium components, assemblies rivetted together in a labour intensive fashion etc) and take a look at something like modern car construction. Simple, large pressed assemblies, robot fabrication (welding/jigging etc), massive use of structural plastics, harmonised plumbing and wiring systems and much more.
I have absolutely no idea what a Saturn 5 rocket systems final cost was (literally, what it had cost, sat fuelled on the pad, just waiting for someone to press the large red button marked "GO") but in 2012 and beyond we must find ways of massively reducing this cost if us humans are going to make the next big leap into space!!
Before the Shuttle fiasco, NASA's original intention was for the original Shuttle design just to be a reusable capsule, no payload. With the retention of the Saturn V for heavy lift and the capsule to be launched using an existing 2 stage booster. With the design to be evolved to make it fully reusable, just as Musk is doing with the F9.
Then the US Airforce got involved, because congress wouldn't fund the program without military support. With their backing out of the use of the shuttle, caused costs to escalate.
One of the conditions was that the S5 was scrapped, with all the tooling etc.
They don't have the capability to build a S5, without completely remaking all the tooling, retesting etc.
There are also a number of flaws in the S5 design, for manned flight the main one is the capsule ejection system, which can't respond fast enough if the rocket exploded.
As has been stated some of the technology has moved on since it was designed, but not as much as Eric MC states, the bulk of it has been materials that allow minor weight improvements and control systems becoming much smaller and much more powerful.
There hasn't been a fully developed paradigm shift, the X-33 program was an attempt at this, but was binned, mainly for political and financial reasons. There were technical hurdles to overcome, but these were not infeasible.
The SLS is a political vote winning cop out, nothing more, there is no political will to go to the moon. With no commercial benefits of being on the moon, there is no political will or drive. Without fully reusable launch systems the financial cost of sending people to the moon, offers little or no benefit to the cost.
Do I think we should continue to explore space, yes of course, but the politicians are looking for political and financial gains in doing so.
Then the US Airforce got involved, because congress wouldn't fund the program without military support. With their backing out of the use of the shuttle, caused costs to escalate.
One of the conditions was that the S5 was scrapped, with all the tooling etc.
They don't have the capability to build a S5, without completely remaking all the tooling, retesting etc.
There are also a number of flaws in the S5 design, for manned flight the main one is the capsule ejection system, which can't respond fast enough if the rocket exploded.
As has been stated some of the technology has moved on since it was designed, but not as much as Eric MC states, the bulk of it has been materials that allow minor weight improvements and control systems becoming much smaller and much more powerful.
There hasn't been a fully developed paradigm shift, the X-33 program was an attempt at this, but was binned, mainly for political and financial reasons. There were technical hurdles to overcome, but these were not infeasible.
The SLS is a political vote winning cop out, nothing more, there is no political will to go to the moon. With no commercial benefits of being on the moon, there is no political will or drive. Without fully reusable launch systems the financial cost of sending people to the moon, offers little or no benefit to the cost.
Do I think we should continue to explore space, yes of course, but the politicians are looking for political and financial gains in doing so.
annodomini2 said:
Before the Shuttle fiasco, NASA's original intention was for the original Shuttle design just to be a reusable capsule, no payload. With the retention of the Saturn V for heavy lift and the capsule to be launched using an existing 2 stage booster. With the design to be evolved to make it fully reusable, just as Musk is doing with the F9.
Then the US Airforce got involved, because congress wouldn't fund the program without military support. With their backing out of the use of the shuttle, caused costs to escalate.
One of the conditions was that the S5 was scrapped, with all the tooling etc.
They don't have the capability to build a S5, without completely remaking all the tooling, retesting etc.
There are also a number of flaws in the S5 design, for manned flight the main one is the capsule ejection system, which can't respond fast enough if the rocket exploded.
As has been stated some of the technology has moved on since it was designed, but not as much as Eric MC states, the bulk of it has been materials that allow minor weight improvements and control systems becoming much smaller and much more powerful.
There hasn't been a fully developed paradigm shift, the X-33 program was an attempt at this, but was binned, mainly for political and financial reasons. There were technical hurdles to overcome, but these were not infeasible.
The SLS is a political vote winning cop out, nothing more, there is no political will to go to the moon. With no commercial benefits of being on the moon, there is no political will or drive. Without fully reusable launch systems the financial cost of sending people to the moon, offers little or no benefit to the cost.
Do I think we should continue to explore space, yes of course, but the politicians are looking for political and financial gains in doing so.
Exactly- the shuttle was a cul-de-sac from the start, designed specifically shaped to loft CIA and Military sattellites but NASA would never have had budget to do what they wanted.Then the US Airforce got involved, because congress wouldn't fund the program without military support. With their backing out of the use of the shuttle, caused costs to escalate.
One of the conditions was that the S5 was scrapped, with all the tooling etc.
They don't have the capability to build a S5, without completely remaking all the tooling, retesting etc.
There are also a number of flaws in the S5 design, for manned flight the main one is the capsule ejection system, which can't respond fast enough if the rocket exploded.
As has been stated some of the technology has moved on since it was designed, but not as much as Eric MC states, the bulk of it has been materials that allow minor weight improvements and control systems becoming much smaller and much more powerful.
There hasn't been a fully developed paradigm shift, the X-33 program was an attempt at this, but was binned, mainly for political and financial reasons. There were technical hurdles to overcome, but these were not infeasible.
The SLS is a political vote winning cop out, nothing more, there is no political will to go to the moon. With no commercial benefits of being on the moon, there is no political will or drive. Without fully reusable launch systems the financial cost of sending people to the moon, offers little or no benefit to the cost.
Do I think we should continue to explore space, yes of course, but the politicians are looking for political and financial gains in doing so.
Had we maintained the development and pace of work since the 60's we'd have been on Mars in the 80's and goodness knows where now!
Simpo Two said:
scubadude said:
Had we maintained the development and pace of work since the 60's we'd have been on Mars in the 80's and goodness knows where now!
Precisely. And the eternally 'starving Africans' would be no more starving than they are now or indeed will always be.Cutting the space program would achieve very little financially, but innovation and skills loss would certainly be more costly.
NASA's budget is less than 0.13% of US GDP and 0.5% of the tax revenue.
And another wheel reinvented - proposal to turn an SLS upper stage into a manned station just like Skylab http://www.space.com/20444-nasa-deep-space-station...
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff