Jeffrey Bell's OK article

radarredux · Sep 9, 2005

Jeffrey Bell has actually written a susprisingly well balanced editorial. He still has some provoking language (e.g., "space cadets"), but he sums up a lot of issues rather nicely. For example, for a SSTO reusable spacecraft (X33/VentureStar) you need to protect a very large fuel tank during re-entry, and that is extremely expensive. The Cold Equations Of Spaceflight http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-05zy.html

lampblack · Sep 9, 2005

What was Spiro Agnew's old phrase (handily provided by his speech writer, Pat Buchanan)? Yes... here it is: the cynicism that sprouts from all the failed human spaceflight promises of the past 30 years tends to transform one into "a nattering nabob of negativity." But things aren't as bleak -- and the dynamics behind everything that has happened in NASA over the past three decades aren't as wholly driven by duplicitous politics and simple human greed -- as Mr. Bell suggests. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Just tell the truth and let the chips fall... </div>

cdr6 · Sep 9, 2005

To give credit where credit is due... he did a good jobon this one. One thing that strikes me is the "cold war/disinformation" analogy...odd that there has never been anyone who put the pices together in that manner before. Space Cadets? Oh, hell yes, I'm definitely one!

tomnackid · Sep 9, 2005

Jerry Pournelle has some harsh words about Bell's article over on his website: http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/view378.html Scroll down. Its under the Friday, September 9 entry.

shuttle_rtf · Sep 9, 2005

My God, an opinion writer, writing about an opinion writer? That's too funny.

paleo · Sep 9, 2005

It's an informative article. Unlike others I usually find find Jeffrey Bell a voice of realism among 'space cadets'.

radarredux · Sep 9, 2005

> My God, an opinion writer, writing about an opinion writer? That's too funny./i> After reading Pournelle's view, I followed up with his lengthy article on SSTO (see below). Given how much Pournelle has looked at the SSTO over the years, I can see why he was peeved by Bell's criticism of DC-X. To summarize Pournelle's view: Bell did not understand the point of the DC-X nor the equations. The SSX link (below) shows Pournelle does. The SSTO/SSX article talks at length about the technical and economic issues surrounding the SSTO orbit concept (he also has some criticisms of the Shuttle). But one thing I really likes was his position on the process of developing such a system (jump to the section "The Real Risk"). His position is that the "X vehicle" development process is important (the DC-X was part of that), and that the X-33, despite the name, did not follow the "X vehicle" development philosophy. THE SSX CONCEPT By Jerry E. Pournelle, Ph.D. http://www.jerrypournelle.com/slowchange/SSX.html

radarredux · Sep 9, 2005

> Jerry Pournelle has some harsh words about Bell's article over on his website/i> Following the Pournelle thread, I found another article by him that this community might find interesting -- the title, "Why Have NASA?". One interesting position is that NASA should retire the shuttle and not develop a follow on shuttle. My summary of the article is that NASA is critical to the US's future, but it should be run like DARPA -- a research and development shop -- and not an operational shop. WHY HAVE NASA? By Jerry E. Pournelle, Ph.D. March 16, 1995 http://www.jerrypournelle.com/slowchange/why_have_nasa.htm#page15

mattblack · Sep 10, 2005

I met Jerry Pournelle in 1991 at a Science Fiction Convention in Long Beach California. He was one of the people taking part in a discussion that I can't even remember the subject of now. But I think it was something to do with "what should Nasa do next?". Anyway, I took him mildly to task, NOT argumentatively, over an opinion and was sharply and somewhat rudely put in my place!! Jeffrey Bell, whose opinion pieces I sometimes frown upon, has got it right this time. Some years ago when I interviewed John Young, I asked him about Venturestar and like-minded projects. He was of the (VERY) educated opinion that with Venturestar, you could have crew OR cargo, NOT both. He suggested that if Venturestar had (wait for it) EXPENDABLE LH2 tank(s) and perhaps was supplemented by expendable solids (Castor-style, like on a Delta II) then it just might reach the target of 40,000lb to LEO. Even with LH2 "drop tanks" and expendable solids, Venturestar should have been much cheaper to operate and quicker to turn around than the Shuttle. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America CAN Afford it!! LEO is a Prison -- It's time for a JAILBREAK!! </div>

spacefire · Sep 10, 2005

To give credit where credit is due... he did a good jobon this one. No de didn't. He lacks a basic understanding of the concept of R&D. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.comhttp://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </div>

tomnackid · Sep 10, 2005

I first met Jerry Pournelle at a SF convention in Cincinnati in 1995. Yes, he can be cranky! It was the 4th of July weekend and what struck me most about him was that he gave up a VIP place at JPL for the Pathfinder landing because he had already commited to being a guest at the convention. So, as long as he is a man of honour and keeps me informed and entertained I'll allow a little craknyness! That being said, I must confess I try to stay away from his blog when I'm at all worried about my blood pressure! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Mattblack: Interesting what you posted about drop tanks or solid boosters. Pournelle (and others) essential have said the same thing. It was extremely foolish to try and design an SSTO the size of Venturestar (x-33 was never intended to make orbit) without some sort of "zero-stage" to give some wiggle room for the mass fraction. Lockheed seemed to know that back inthe early 70s with their Starclipper design--somehow they forgot their own lessons.

radarredux · Sep 10, 2005

> Even with LH2 "drop tanks" and expendable solids,/i> It seems that in general you want the engines at the bottom of the craft, the crew at the top (away from shedding debris), thus placing the tanks in the middle. But what you want to save and reuse are the engines (at the bottom) and the crew component (at the top). The tanks in the middle are large (thus expensive to protect in re-entry) but relatively inexpensive to replace. In my mind I have this weird looking "slinky spaceship" (like the dog in "Toy Story"), with the crew at one end, the engine at the other. At launch the "slinky ship" is stretched to accomodate the tanks in the middle. When the tanks are no longer needed, they are kicked out, and the "slinky ship" contracts to a smaller vehicle. The now compact "slinky ship" returns from orbit, and it has a much smaller area to protect during re-entry than the full VentureStar did. Pretty weird image, huh?

mattblack · Sep 10, 2005

Well, what I should have said was that Jeff Bell was right to criticize the "fools gold" pursuit of SSTO, as it has been traditionally proposed. But I did say that occasionally Bell would get "off the leash" and annoy me!! I still think that John Young had it the most right. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America CAN Afford it!! LEO is a Prison -- It's time for a JAILBREAK!! </div>

spacefire · Sep 10, 2005

SSTO is not a fool's pursuit. SSTO is achievable, and if some projects fail, the lessons learned are stil valuable. Say, maybe your engine's ISP is not high enough, still, maybe you will be able to, later on, use the structure of your design with better engines. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.comhttp://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </div>

j05h · Sep 10, 2005

>SSTO is not a fool's pursuit. SSTO is achievable,.... Reusable or expendable? From what I can tell, the pros and the public are enamored to viewgraph solutions. Build it, fly it, break it. Or be lame like Lockheed. Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

spacefire · Sep 10, 2005

yeah well let's not be lame and NEVER develop new technology because it costs money...an who knows, it might not work on the first try! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.comhttp://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </div>

mattblack · Sep 10, 2005

Want SSTO? Crew or cargo, NOT both. Or use nuclear thermal propulsion!! In his novels, Ben Bova had the "Clipperships" made out of diamond with the highest possible ISP engines. Even then, to go to the moon they had to refuel at LEO or L1. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America CAN Afford it!! LEO is a Prison -- It's time for a JAILBREAK!! </div>

lampblack · Sep 10, 2005

Well, heck... they should have made VentureStar a passenger craft exclusively -- and THEN developed a shuttle-derived heavy lifter. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Then we'd have had low-cost, routine human spaceflight plus the ability to haul heavy hardware into orbit. Of course, if pigs could fly... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Just tell the truth and let the chips fall... </div>

radarredux · Sep 10, 2005

> SSTO is not a fool's pursuit. SSTO is achievable, and if some projects fail, the lessons learned are stil valuable./i> Getting back to the Pournelle articles, his position was that SSTO was probably a very good idea, but there was enough uncertainty in the models/equations that it was hard to convince everyone. [Note: as a recent example, the data collected on the last shuttle flight showed that the models NASA was using for airflow around the PAL were wrong -- sometimes you need to go fly in order to answer the questions.] This led to his second position - use "X vehicle" development approach to answer the uncertainties. The problem is that most people (and apparently Bell) do not understand the purpose of X vehicles -- they are about answering questions, not building prototypes. Hence, even though the X-33 had an 'X' in the title, it was not an "X vehicle" in the Pournelle way of thinking.

j05h · Sep 11, 2005

> yeah well let's not be lame and NEVER develop new technology because it costs money...an who knows, it might not work on the first try! are you kidding,spacefire? NASA, Lockheed and a handful of companies have blown billions of dollars the past 3 decades, to promote SSTO "real soon now." It's not a question of SSTO working/not working, the mass fractions have been shown in several rockets including the Saturn V first stage. The problems are insisting on SSTO with reuse and stuffing the rocket into funny shaped wedges that look real cool in promotional videos. You have been sold on designs that are nothing but fiction. X-33/VStar was make-work for Lockheed, they hold some press conferences and order some parts and you all swallow it! Ha! And you wonder why we aren't further along in developing space? The answer is simple: payola. I never recommended not doing research, but these clowns fail over and over, and you want them to keep getting our (my) money? Are you paying attention? Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

radarredux · Sep 11, 2005

> X-33/VStar was make-work for Lockheed/i> The X-33 was bad, bad, bad. SSTO may or may not work, but the X-33 should not be taken as evidence that it cannot work. From a Pournelle article on their change from against SSTO to support for SSTO: http://www.jerrypournelle.com/slowchange/SSX.html <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Astonishingly, in the 1988 [Citizen's Advisory Council on National Space Policy] meeting held to choose a specific line of space ship development, there were almost no debates. Just about everyone present recommended a Single Stage to Orbit Vertical Takeoff/Vertical Landing fully reusable multi-engine system. From having no adherents other than Gary Hudson in 1980, SSTO had become the unanimous choice of a distinguished group of rocket scientists and engineers.<hr /></blockquote> Furthermore, from their recommended approach: http://www.jerrypournelle.com/slowchange/SSX2.html <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />We recommend funding at levels of approximately $100 million a year for no more than five years. We do not recommend substantially higher funding. Over funding the program will be as disastrous as under funding. One purpose of reviving the X programs is to gain experience in developing sophisticated new technologies on time and in budget.<hr /></blockquote> So two points -- SSTO may work, but a series of experimental systems need to be developed to answer several important questions. Apparently NASA and Lockheed do not understand the idea of low-cost research and development efforts.

spacefire · Sep 11, 2005

Hence, even though the X-33 had an 'X' in the title, it was not an "X vehicle" in the Pournelle way of thinking. very good point. they shouldn't have said the X33 was a subscale VenturetStar. I don't think trying to test ALL of a vehicles systems at once, in a single experimental aircraft, is practical. I think they were trying to save money. Ideally you would have had a series of vehicles leading up to the VentureStar, and this would have been totally unrelated to the X series of aircraft which are only technology demonstrators. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.comhttp://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </div>

shuttle_man · Sep 11, 2005

Are these two guys been involved in the program, or have ever been invovled in the program? No. People need to realize that they are not the gospel on this!

spayss · Sep 11, 2005

"Are these two guys been involved in the program, or have ever been invovled in the program? " Sorry, we live in a democracy and NASA belongs to the People and not engineers and bureaucrats. ALL Americans are involved in the Program and not just insiders. No one is stopping the insiders from refusing tax dollars and outside opinion. The insiders can start up their own programs with their own money at any time. If they want to remain part of a federal agency then they will be answerable to citizens, commentators, etc. whether or not these voices are insiders.

yurkin · Sep 11, 2005

I’m a little confused by Bells recent article. Bell wrote Shuttle-Derived Vehicle: Shuttle Derived Disaster just in April of last year. In the article he mostly illustrates his own basic lack of engineering knowledge. I can only assume that in the last year and a half someone has talked some sense into him. But it’s still hard to give him any credibility when he so radically changes his position. Even though I partly agree with Bell on this one I think he should stick to doing planetary science and leave the rocket science to the rocket scientists.

Jeffrey Bell's OK article

radarredux

Guest

lampblack

Guest

cdr6

Guest

tomnackid

Guest

shuttle_rtf

Guest

paleo

Guest

radarredux

Guest

radarredux

Guest

mattblack

Guest

spacefire

Guest

tomnackid

Guest

radarredux

Guest

mattblack

Guest

spacefire

Guest

j05h

Guest

spacefire

Guest

mattblack

Guest

lampblack

Guest

radarredux

Guest

j05h

Guest

radarredux

Guest

spacefire

Guest

shuttle_man

Guest

spayss

Guest

yurkin

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page