Don A. Nelson, Monday, 9-20-10
Guest: Don Nelson. Topics: NASA management problems and resolutions. We welcomes Don Nelson of Nelson Aerospace Consulting to the program. You can learn more about what Don Nelson spoke about on this show by visiting his website, www.nasaproblems.com. In addition, please note that you are invited to comment, ask questions, and rate this program on the new Space Show blog, http://thespaceshowoutsidethebox.blogspot.com. In our first segment, Mr. Nelson introduced us to NASA management problems, their origins, and provided us with many examples of what he was talking about. One of the recurring themes throughout today's program focused on the need for accountability and oversight. He shared with us his experience with his shuttle work where his sign off signature needed to be reviewed by 22 oversight individuals who just rubber stamped his signature. He talked about growing the shuttle program to 24,000 people and why the larger number created more problems. This led us to a discussion about our national aerospace workforce and he said that the workforce was regarded as a national treasure. He defined that in a way that may surprise many of you so listen to what he said. During this segment, Don had much to say about Ares 1, Constellation, and Orion. He challenged the safety, especially with Orion, and said that to meet the changing flight characteristics of Ares 1 to solve those problem, NASA took out safety features in Orion to lighten the mass. He then talked about the static margin for Orion. About midway through this discussion, I asked Don to define static margin which refers to center of gravity. He said the static margin was very sensitive and every time a change came in, the static margin had to be redesigned. Don talked about the idea that NASA centers were not so team oriented and often individually focused for the center only, not for NASA as a whole. He said this was part of the management set of issues. In the second segment, he again stressed accountability and oversight. One of the listener questions dealt with the younger engineers and employees at NASA having a say in things and Don suggested no, they typically go along and don't rock the boat. In returning to the oversight issue, he said it needed to be independent with clout. I suggested this was needed across the board with government today and that pointing only to NASA was unrealistic since NASA is reflecting problems throughout government and today's society and culture. Jim in Alabama sent in a note asking why he was targeting Marshall in his comments. Don replied that he was not targeting Marshall but did say Marshall and JSC are the biggest contributors to the problems he was talking about, followed by KSC. Don was asked if he had any conflict of interest or financial interest in any outcome for NASA or any of its centers. Don said no to both. Don is supportive of keeping shuttle flying but as an unmanned robotic vehicle to hold the costs down. He said shuttle already has that capability. It would reduce about 2,000 lbs of mass in the front end, freeing that up for payload and adding crew escape to shuttle. Don then said we would be unable to solve the launch cost problem using expendable rockets. When asked about transitioning to commercial rockets, he said as long as they were expendable, the launch costs would remain very high. Near the end of the program, we talked about media reporting and suggested that the general interest news media would need to report a story such as NASA management issues. Listen to hear why. Our guest made it clear he was not NASA bashing, but was in fact a strong supporter of NASA, but one who wants to get it on track in solving the problems he highlights. He says he talks to top NASA people all the time and frequently goes to Congress with his message. If you have questions or comments for Don Nelson, you can email him through his website or by using nasaproblems@yahoo.com.
The way-outside-the-box idea in this episode was by the guest who suggested that full commercialization of Shuttle could be cost effective for launching satellites :)
ReplyDeleteHows that out of the box? The bulk of the cost of the shuttle ops were for politically desirable - but practically useless - activities. Also shuttle itself was easily refitable to be more durable and easy to service. It was the labor saving potential that was the road block with congress. Big personnel layoffs unless you scale up the flight rate a lot, was a MAJOR downside to congress. A commercial operator would certainly not agree.
ReplyDelete;)
I would not be surprised if you could operate them or prices somewhere in the bigger Falcon - Delta Prices.
Biggelow could certainly have a field day with Orbiters to built and service hisstations.
Kelly, the SRBs alone cost more than twice the cost of an Atlas V. The problem is that Shuttle is a medium lift vehicle at heavy lift stack prices and there's still no market for heavy lift.
ReplyDeleteI was always sorry to see that the orbiters never evolved much beyond the experimental vehicle stage. Even when NASA built Endevour as a replacement for Challenger they used a lot of spare parts rather than learn from their previous operating experience. They should have gone for a smaller shuttle with improved access for servicing, more akin to their original designs before the vehicle tried to do everything for everybody. This approach would have given them an alternative when they were grounded for losing Columbia. Perhaps a more commercial approach would have gone down that route.
ReplyDelete> QuantumG said...
ReplyDelete> Kelly, the SRBs alone cost more than twice the cost of an Atlas V. ==
Not unless A-V's are a lot cheaper then I've seen on their ad site!
Margin cost for a Shuttle price according to GAO is $60 million. And thats with the NASA crap added.
If the quoted 75% reduction in program cost could be delivered in commercial operation you'ld be maybe $150M-$200+Mf total per flight? Less if you upgrade it to upgrade servicability (a factor of 10 should be easy with the existing craft. - DC-X demoed a factor of a 1000 reduction with more clean sheet reconfiguring - but most just involved cleaning up the internal layout and making sure you could reach things from hatches.
>== The problem is that Shuttle is a medium lift vehicle at heavy
> lift stack prices and there's still no market for heavy lift.
Figure it as Eaither a Dragon/Falcon replacement, or a Falcon heavy (or both) in a single flight.
25 tons is - or at least use to - be heavy lift.
> andrew.hill said...
ReplyDelete> I was always sorry to see that the orbiters never evolved
> == learn from their previous operating experience. ==
After the first couple flights with Columbia, Rockwell proposed orbiter 102, instead go to a 200 design, with metal clad bolt on bolt off tiles, much improved access to cut service hours 10-100 fold etc.
It all hit a wall with congress given the huge labor saving = huge layoffs adn cost reductions in the target districts.
Same reason why Griffen kept so much shuttle gear in Constellation -- and made a design far more expensive per flight then shuttle, so the costs would stay up - even with a flight rate way way down.
> == They should have gone for a smaller shuttle with improved access
> for servicing,==
Improved servicing would be a big plus -- smaller size, actually not.
The smaller craft wouldn't be proportionally cheaper to service or operate -- (the flights and related servicing and prep, are actually a ridiculously small fraction of the total costs per flight) -- but it would lose potential market.
This interview with Don Nelson reveals the sad situation of our space program. I think that it is too late to save the shuttle politically. If this was nine or ten years ago it seems to me that it would have been best to evolve a Shuttle II with an emphasis on incorporating improvement that would have reduced operational costs. Then we would build a set of new orbiters to replace the old ones on in a phased program. This could have been done for less cost than was squandered on Constellation and there would be no “gap” in our to LEO capabilities. Then we could have proceeded with the sidemount unmanned HLV to support missions that required greater capacity then the Shuttles.
ReplyDeleteThis is no longer politically workable and don’t see us going back now.
If we don’t completely gut the space program in the next couple of years (not a zero probability), we still have a chance to avoid the expendable booster route. Instead of building an Ares V-lite expendable we could develop something like my proposed two-stage to orbit launcher with a recoverable first-stage and an expendable (or partly expendable) second-stage.
Dr. Nelson dismissed this type of recovery by using the examples of historical boosters evolved from military rockets with no design for reusability missed the point. I suspect the main reason such efforts were non-viable has more to do with the design the expendables than anything else. We do recover Shuttle SRBs but the solid fuel design makes reuse more like a complete rebuild than a vehicle depot process. Engines would have to be designed for multiple missions, structure would have be designed to withstand the recovery process, and special features incorporated to make this work, e.g. balutes, parachutes, maintaining tank pressure, and landing cushions. The second-stage might be expendable or perhaps propulsion module could be returned for recovery as in some of the sidemount studies.
Given prevailing prejudices against Shuttle-type vehicles (with I don’t share by the way) this might be a way to direct the budget in the Senate bill in a more productive way. I doubt that it would cost more to develop than the Ares V-lite and it would be a lot cheaper to operate in terms of $/kg to LEO.
Sadly John, I think your to optimistic. Senate and house plans don't gut out NASA as fast as Obamaspace, and does include retaining the potential for human exploration beyond LEO someday. But we're laying off such a huge fraction of NASA and US aerospace. So many persons related to developing and operating space craft and missions. I wonder if its to late for NASA. The UTTER lack of support for anything other then pork from space advocates is shocking.
ReplyDeleteBottom line, in under a year the shuttles - the most advanced and capable spacecraft ever fielded (which has dominated not just US space history, but the worlds efforts in space) will be grounded, and with it the US space program. NASA astronauts can participate in the Russia space program on the US ISS, but the US space program will be shutdown, and I'm not sure we'll be have enough left to build a new one later.
I suppose the MIL space program is still progressing. Developing the RLV replacements for the current EELV's (Delta-IV and Atlas-V). So at least some part of the gov is supporting adn researching new space launch technology.
One thought. One thing that could shake all this up (even more then the conservative wave headed toward congress in a few weeks) What will the US do if we lose a couple astronauts in a soyuz crash? Soyuz reliability has been degrading. A couple of the last few flights had problems. One of two very serious problems (that lost Soyuz ships and crew before). Its been a long term trend as the Soyuz construction and support infrastructure (human and machine) declines or is lost to the program. So basing all US carry to the ISS for at least the next 5 years - the odds of losing a crew are not bad.
ReplyDeleteWhat happens when we lose a crew, and the investigation shows the Soyuz had a known and increasing, risk factor?
What I meant by a smaller shuttle design was something that would allow the same or more numbers of crew on a single flight with a reduced cargo capacity. I dont think that it is necessary to have such a large payload bay when such cargo could be taken to LEO more efficiently with a conventional rocket.
ReplyDeleteThe problem at the moment is that the US doesn't have a crew transport it wouldn't make sense to me to create one the size of the shuttle. I thought something along the lines of a HL-20 would work better with a separate cargo launcher.
I tend to agree with the small spaceplane concept if my reusable launcher concept were to prove workable. (See my post above for a description of this.) It would be nice to have some cargo capacity mainly for bring things down and also to transport supplies for the ISS (and other items that don’t automate well) along with crews. One problem with the Shuttle is that it requires sending 100 tons into space to carry a 25 ton payload. So pure heavy payload mission would be sent up via launcher unmanned and crews and certain specialized payloads would go up on the orbiter.
ReplyDeleteIf the launcher were assumed to be develop anyway for other purposes, i.e. propellant depots and lunar missions, then the cost would be less than a Shuttle because you would need to develop and integrate a main propulsion system. Kelly is right that you don’t save much by size alone in development. Production is a more size dependent but is mitigated by an economy of scale factor.
> andrew.hill said...
ReplyDelete> What I meant by a smaller shuttle design was
> something that would allow the same or more
> numbers of crew on a single flight with a
> reduced cargo capacity. == such cargo could be
> taken to LEO more efficiently with a
> conventional rocket
That would be more efficent, but also cost much more.
Conventional rockets are throwaways, and developing (or even operating) a secound fleet dramatically increases your total costs - hence cost per flight
>=== One problem with the Shuttle is that it
ReplyDelete> requires sending 100 tons into space to carry
> a 25 ton payload. ==
How is that a problem? Why would you care?
In a engineering sense its less efficient, but that's utterly the last thing you should worry about. You want to lower cost. That means you need to increase your flight rate, and lower your upfrount costs. really both! A single craft that can serve as many markets as possible.
Second, you need to lower the costs to operate it. A more rugged, servicable design is then a big plus - and also fewer contradictory designs.
Its like trucks - you don't design lots of specialized trucks -you build multi-purpose trucks that can do about anything.
Kelly Starks said...
ReplyDeleteThat would be more efficent, but also cost much more.
Conventional rockets are throwaways, and developing (or even operating) a secound fleet dramatically increases your total costs - hence cost per flight
The US already operates a second fleet :- Atlas, Delta and Falcon use these for cargo and should the need arise let private industry either evolve it from existing rockets or create a bigger launcher. Waiting for a heavy lift reusable launcher to replace shuttle (no matter how desirable) will put everything on hold to long.
> andrew.hill said...
ReplyDelete>== Waiting for a heavy lift reusable launcher
> to replace shuttle (no matter how desirable)
> will put everything on hold to long.
Everything is already on hold.
If your talking about developing a shuttle to carry crew, might as well make it able to do some cargo business as well.
Also note Atlas and Delta are scheduled to be phased out for a reusable replacement booster.
Kelly Starks said...
ReplyDeleteIf your talking about developing a shuttle to carry crew, might as well make it able to do some cargo business as well.
Also note Atlas and Delta are scheduled to be phased out for a reusable replacement booster.
I think that a replacement shuttle should be able to carry 2 or 3 ton of cargo but there is no need for it to carry over 20 tons when other launchers can do this.
No reason why an Atlas/Delta reusable successor couldn't take cargo when these rockets retire or even crew.
>== I think that a replacement shuttle should be able to carry 2 or 3 ton of
ReplyDelete> cargo but there is no need for it to carry over 20 tons when other launchers
> can do this.==
But again. Theres virtualy no market for cargo in the 2-3 ton range, so a shuttle that can only carry that has no market. Hence the costs per flight skyrocket. Whats the point of developing a expensive single purpose craft?
andrew.hill, that's the Dreamchaser.. being funded under ccdev for now.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_Chaser_%28spacecraft%29
It's based on original the Personnel Launch System study done by the Rockwell Corporation.
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19920003920_1992003920.pdf
Kelly Starks said...
ReplyDeleteTheres virtualy no market for cargo in the 2-3 ton range, so a shuttle that can only carry that has no market.
I would have thought ISS and Bigelow would be a market. The actual components of space stations need not be sent into orbit by a shuttle but crew, consumables and relatively small spares or experiments could be easily sent this way. Much in the the way Soyuz does now only on a slightly bigger scale.
QuantumG said...
andrew.hill, that's the Dreamchaser.. being funded under ccdev for now.
Yes I was aware that Dreamchaser is basically a modified HL-20 with Hybrid motors. SpaceDev was looking at launching on an Atlas at one point but everything seems to have gone very quiet on this front even with the NASA funding they got. Not sure what they've been upto lately, when Sierra Nevarda dont update their site as often as SpaceDev used to.
>> Kelly Starks said...
ReplyDelete>> Theres virtualy no market for cargo in the
>> 2-3 ton range, so a shuttle that can only
>> carry that has no market.
> andrew.hill said...
> I would have thought ISS and Bigelow would
> be a market. The actual components of space
> stations need not be sent into orbit by a
> shuttle but crew, consumables and relatively
> small spares or experiments could be ==
NASA looking to contract for 20 crew flights assuming the ISS lasts until 2020. They already contracted 10 of those flights out to Rusia - so you have 10 other flights your competing for.
On the other hand constructing and maintenance of the station took dozens of shuttle flights, and supplies to the ISS is a couple 10-20 ton flights a year. Plus global launches of sats and stuff ups it to 50 total launches a year. Again, crew flights to ISS is 2 a year from NASA from 2015-2020.
Biggelow is a BIG question. They might have a lot of customers lined up -- or none. Still, Even they need a lot of cargo, and damn well need something to build and assemble (and service) their stations with.
Can't start off giving up the bulk of potential customers to competitors like Atlas and Delta, especially when that drives up your costs a lot.
This is also a point where a shuttle versus a capsule like Dragon or dreamchaser. A shuttle produces much of its own delta-V and saves engines and such, you can save a lot of the launch costs.
You are assuming NASA has 2 crew flights a year whereas a cheaper easier to operate system might give them more flight opportunities and expand the use of the ISS. I would have thought that there would be extra European astronauts and space tourists if they could fly from the US instead of Russia (No extended training period in Russia and not being required to learn Russian could aid sales).
ReplyDeleteBigelow can already get his stations launched (he has 2 in orbit after all) but he hasn't got a crew ride.
I think developing anything the size of the current shuttle would take far to long and cost to much to implement whereas a smaller craft could be easier and cheaper to operate. Size matters and getting something the size of the shuttle ready for flight must take longer than a much smaller craft. Physically fabricating and assembling large parts is harder to do and costs more. Building an external tank would be quicker if it was only a fraction of the size for instance. The amount of time and labour required to build, insulate and test out this is huge.
> andrew.hill said...
ReplyDelete>
> You are assuming NASA has 2 crew flights a
> year whereas a cheaper easier to operate system
> might give them more flight opportunities and
> expand the use of the ISS.==
NASA's not intersted in that, or in saving money. Look at Constellation which would cost several times as much as perflight as the shuttle, and carry much less and fewer people. Also there is the lifeboat issue limiting crew size.
Its a common misconception that reducing flight costs would increase fight rates for NASA. But NASA isn't a company or person, its a government agency. Its votes, not dollars that they need to budget.
>==
> I would have thought that there would be extra
> European astronauts and space tourists if they
> could fly from the US instead of Russia =
Limiting tourist access is a big plus for NASA. They were furious with Russia for allowing tourists on the ISS.
>== I think developing anything the size of the
> current shuttle would take far to long and
> cost to much to implement whereas a smaller
> craft could be easier and cheaper to operate. ==
Another common myth hystory disproves. For example the Orion capsule was expected to take 20% more money (in inflation adjusted dollars) adn take longer to develop, then the shuttle orbiters -- and the orbiters are reusable, and designed to higher safety and reliability standards..
>== Physically fabricating and assembling large
> parts is harder to do and costs more. Building
> an external tank would be quicker if it was
> only a fraction of the size for instance. ==
No, you just need bigger tooling. Doesn't take much longer to build 747's then bizjets either.
Costs a bit more to service the larger craft, but that's a negligible fraction of launch costs, so it won't impact launch costs.
A big thing folks forget is the expensive parts are the same in the big or little ships. A shuttle with room for 8 and a 25 ton cargo bay, or a capsule and service module for6 -- same avionics, life support, power systems, propulsion, etc. The big cargo bay in between doesn't cost much, and the extra room lowers costs of the complex systems.
ReplyDeleteKelly Starks said...
ReplyDeleteNo, you just need bigger tooling. Doesn't take much longer to build 747's then bizjets either.
Costs a bit more to service the larger craft, but that's a negligible fraction of launch costs, so it won't impact launch costs.
While I agree that NASA does not normally develop cheaper craft and if they did that might not necessarily result in more flights, its almost a certainty expensive craft lead to less flights.
Bigger vehicles require bigger tooling which costs more to maintain and operate which fabricate large structures that need more inspection and are harder/complex to test. If you have to x-ray every weld to make sure it is OK for flight then it will obviously take longer and be more expensive if you have more of them.
Another thought is that NASA has historically designed and built expensive, complex, labor intensive craft that they could't afford to operate. Given the current financial pressures it might be a good idea for them to design something that was relatively cheap to operate with looming budget cuts on the horizon.
> andrew.hill said...
ReplyDelete>== While I agree that NASA does not normally develop cheaper
> craft and if they did that might not necessarily result
> in more flights, its almost a certainty expensive craft lead to
> less flights.
Not at all. Certainly not for NASA, where the costs are irrelevant to their getting the votes authorizing the money to fly them. Actually for NASA more expensive missions get MORE Congressional support. Literally its far far harder to get authorization for a Million $ mission or program, then a $billion one. Theres not enough money being thrown around to interest congressmen enough to bother with. That why there was always HUGE congressional pressure on NASA to not do upgrades or regs that could lower costs.
>== Bigger vehicles require bigger tooling which costs more to
> maintain and operate which ==
Yes, but not that much, and it doesn't add much to the manufacture or launch costs. Same with servicing. Yes it will cost more labor hours - but its a trivial cost fraction of launch costs.
You have to remember, the things you worry about driving up costs in mature transportation systems (fuel, labor, etc) have no impact on space launch costs, because they are dwarfed by the fixed costs per year, and the development costs -- all divided by each flight. So if you spend 5 times more money developing and purchasing the bigger craft (hard to do as I explained) and need 5 times more money per year in fixed costs, but you get 10 times more flights - you halved the cost per fight.
>== Another thought is that NASA has historically designed
> and built expensive, complex, labor intensive craft that they could't
> afford to operate. Given the current financial pressures it might be a
> good idea for them to design something that was relatively cheap
> to operate with looming budget cuts on the horizon.
The problem is, congress sees NASA mainly as a way to get money to districts. If the costs drop to much - they may well see no reason to authorize the missions. Certainly NASA traditionally RAN from anything that could lower their launch costs. They paid Lockheed/Martin a extra billion if they would drop the idea of building a SSTO demonstrator. L/M and McDonnell Douglas were willing to contractually the VentureStar or DC-X derived shuttles would be at least 90% cheaper to operate. NASA turned them down flat.
Not sure where we really are in this conversation, are you saying that the bigger vehicle is better because it costs more so congress is more likely to fund it as a way of giving money to NASA? If so I would argue that historically Congress hasn't given the money needed by these projects.
ReplyDeleteConfused!!!
I would argue that NASA should design a program that has a chance of getting the money needed for its completion. Constantly cancelling programs achieve very little other than keeping centres open and employing people (If that is the goal then NASA has been over-achieving for decades).
I dont understand why if NASA needs to spend a lot of money because Congress wants it to for the above reasons why it wont fly a cheaper and simpler system many times a year rather than an expensive one a few times. You could spend the same money and have a bigger fleet of craft requiring the same number of staff to look after them.
With regard to maintenance costs of larger vehicles, from my experience working in the defense industry as an EMC test engineer I can say that the test equipment needed for larger equipment is nearly always a great deal more expensive as they get bigger (it is not normally a linear function it starts to become exponential). This is particularly true when dealing with the special requirements of unique test samples. For example if I needed an amplifier to create an rf field to make sure the vehicle was not susceptible to interference the size of that field would determine my amplifier output power. The cost of amplifiers would be huge millions of dollars maybe for a large craft. This is only my discipline I would expect other fields to have similar issues. So these would not be trivial costs to be ignored.
> andrew.hill said...
ReplyDelete>
> Not sure where we really are in this conversation,
> are you saying that the bigger vehicle is better because
> it costs more so congress is more likely to fund it as a way
> of giving money to NASA? If so I would argue that historically Congress
> hasn't given the money needed by these projects.
Actually congress is much more likely to give funds to a expensive project then a small one. But its not that the big ships are necessarily more expensive (again remember the shuttles weer much cheaper then what Ares/Orion was supposed to be), but a more expensive craft to develop, and more expensive to operate, has traditionally been a really big plus in a pitch to congress. So if they pitch a program that costs to little - it has very little chance of getting Congress interested enough to even try to get it approved. To high, and though their congressional supporters will love it -- they won't have enough clout to get enough votes for it.
Welcome to Oz.
>=== Constantly cancelling programs achieve very little other than
> keeping centres open and employing people (If that is the goal then
> NASA has been over-achieving for decades).
That IS the goal.
> I dont understand why if NASA needs to spend a lot of money because
> Congress wants it to for the above reasons why it wont fly a cheaper
> and simpler system many times a year rather than an expensive one
> a few times. ==
Because then you need to justify far more flights to get the same amount of money spent. Its much less efficient way to spend the money and please Congress, then a few, expensive flights. Also it makes space flight more routine - hence the missions have less PR value. If space is to routine, NASA is less exciting for its novelty. Good PR value is another (really "the" other) source of political support for NASA.
Thats why when Griffen designed Constellation the way he did. He wanted (according to him" "for space flight to be rare spectacles". Constellation is stunningly expensive. Ares, Orion, Altair was to be at least over twice the cost of Shuttle to develop. Also costing nearly 7 times (or more) as much per launch, yet be capable of flying only about a sixth as many folks a year.
>== With regard to maintenance costs of larger vehicles, ==
Historically bigger aircraft cost less to operate / repair per ton of cargo (hence why you do bigger aircraft for cargo) but again, that's irrelivent to the launch costs.
>= as an EMC test engineer==
EMC?
>==So these would not be trivial costs to be ignored.
In this case they are trivial. With virtually no flights for the full service life of a craft, the upfrount development costs can easily be several hundred million per flight. Even if the repair and launch gear costs a billion or two to buy. Its likely a 40th as much per fight.
Its extremely weird economics due to the extremely lower flight rates.
You paint a pretty bleak picture of the US space program and if it is how you say it is then nobody is going anywhere in space and the US will lose its lead. I cant bring myself to believe that this is the case and at some point someone will inject some sanity.
ReplyDeleteEven in Europe where things take as long the current discussion going on to develop ATV for down mass and eventually crew transport may well produce something before NASA.
EMC = Electromagnetic Compatibility = The process by which equipment is tested and controlled so that it does not affect the electromagnetic environment in which it is placed or conversely be affected by that environment. Basically the control of radio interference either conducted on cables or radiated from areas acting as antennas. Affects can lead to failures and malfunctions, sometimes catastrophic. I seem to remember the shuttle had a problem a couple of years back with a cable that was moved on the outside of the External Tank which interfered with the fuel sensors resulting in false readings and a flight be cancelled/postponed.
The example I gave of an amplifier is only one, there are many things with growth of craft that will mean costs and time increase considerably. So like I said this cant be ignored. However from your point of view (which quite frankly I find an insane proposition and not easy to swallow) I can see why you think it can.
I guess it boils down to how you perceive NASA, purely as a jobs program or a government agency trying to do engineering. I see it as the latter, principally because I worked for the UK MoD and then DERA (Defence Evaluation and Research Agency) as an engineer.
> andrew.hill said...
ReplyDelete>You paint a pretty bleak picture of the US space program and if it is how you
> say it is then nobody is going anywhere in space and the US will lose its lead. ==
Its as bleak as I say -- though
Even in Europe where things take as long the current discussion going on to develop ATV for down mass and eventually crew transport may well produce something before NASA.
> EMC = Electromagnetic Compatibility ==
Ah, ok.
>== The example I gave of an amplifier is only one, there are many things with growth of craft
> that will mean costs and time increase considerably. So like I said this cant be ignored.
> However from your point of view (which quite frankly I find an insane proposition and
> not easy to swallow) I can see why you think it can.
Its not my point of view, its really simple economics and scale of operations. The upfront costs are huge (like for all aircraft) but there’s virtually no utilization. Only a couple launchers ever did 100 launches before they were phased out.
Now the good side of this though, is massive cost reductions per launch simply requires more flights – not a new technology. Obviously most launchers aren’t developed to fly often, since no customer asked, but its very doable and even the single use systems can fly many flights. So if you want to lower costs a factor of 10 or a hundred, you need a reusable LV (which DC-X showed was very doable with common – even obsolete – commercial ‘90’s technology) and a market that can keep your fleet flying 100 times as often. Even at that cost reduction, normal sane operation cost concerns don’t really dominate.
Now when you are fly enough that you can look at dropping launch costs down to low tens of dollars a pound – then you need to really focus on normal operational factors like fuel, sizing for the cargo, etc.
>== I guess it boils down to how you perceive NASA, purely as a jobs program or a
> government agency trying to do engineering. ==
I certainly thought of it as a engineering and exploration agency, focused on advancing us technologically – and into space exploration and utilization. But after work at NASA or on its programs for 16 years or so out of my 30 years of professional life – such illusions were brutally beaten out of me.
☹