So much for the idea of an SRB being less expensive for CLV

[vt_hokie]

I say let's give SpaceDev the $120 million they say they need for the orbital version of their "Dreamchaser". Heck, even if they're off by a factor of ten, it'll still be cheaper than CEV!

 

[mattblack]

I'd rather give that money to T-Space for their CXV and it's derivatives. Those designs just ring true for me.<br /><br />And if they really wanted to cut costs heaps more: Get Russia to upgrade the Soyuz's Service Module (specifically, it's propulsion), scale down the LSAM to a 3-man vehicle and got to the Moon (barely adequately) for billions less. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>I'd rather give that money to T-Space for their CXV and it's derivatives. Those designs just ring true for me. </i><br /><br />Well, as you may know, I don't like capsules. I'd like to move onto something a little more advanced for the 21st century - something that can be flown back to Earth in civilized fashion rather than falling back down by parachute to a semi-controlled crash.<br /><br />http://www.spacedev.com/newsite/images/dc4.jpg<br /><br />I just can't accept regressing after STS and replacing the space shuttle with a primitive ballistic re-entry capsule.

 

[mattblack]

>>falling back down by parachute to a semi-controlled crash.<<<br /><br />Mere opinion at best, sheer semantic nonsense at worst.<br /><br /> />>I just can't accept regressing after STS<<<br /><br />While I have some sympathy for that view, if they're barely willing to fund new ballistic capsules with taxpayer money, why do you think they would cough-up far more (50%, 75%, 200% percent??) to create an RLV and/or spaceplane? Let private industry (Rutan, Spacedev etc.) develop spaceplanes if they want to with investor money!! They'll find out just how bloody hard that is to do.<br /><br />Also, as has tiredly been pointed out ad-nauseum, no RLV outside of science fiction or nuclear propulsion can lift 50 tons to LEO, let alone the 100+plus tons needed for Lunar/Mars missions. AND -- developing a lifting body or spaceplane that can survive a 40,000kph re-entry from deep space, while not impossible is VERY DIFFICULT AND EXPENSIVE TO DO!!!<br /><br />You've got to let go of the rose-tinted, science fiction wishlist and know what's technically do-able for the budget-strangled mediocrity that often dooms taxpayer funded manned space programs. <br /><br />Remember: it's the MISSION that's important, NOT the vehicle. The cheapest, safest and most reliable vehicle for getting humans into space at the moment just happens to be a 40-year old design built in Russia. Aerospace should be moving onto something more capable than the Concorde, but it's NOT. It's adopting more advanced, more economic but in someways more conservative (aerodynamically) SUBSONIC airliners. And this is an approach that's also a trend with manned space vehicles: The first-generation spaceplane (Shuttle) is being replaced with a FIFTH generation semi-ballistic capsule (CEV).<br /><br />Reliable, cheap RLVs WILL come, but not overnight. It'll happen slowly and Private space will lead the way.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

Excellent post! But don't expect our debate opponents here to answer you with facts and truth anymore than they answer me!<br /><br />I too, hold out high hopes for the eventual human manned space craft built with pure private funding. Built for the purpose of taking paying passengers into sub-orbital flight at first, and eventually even orbital flight, at the kind of costs that the shuttle was originally to have! No doubt about it if there are truly large profits to be made in such a business (and I believe there will be) then it will eventually be done!<br /><br />However, there is the operative word "Eventually". That eventually will be even longer than NASA's plans to go back to the moon, and quite possibly even longer than NASA's plans to even go on to Mars! <br /><br />So if the people here that want these kinds of craft build, by the kinds of companies that they want to do the building. And I really hate to inform people of this, but as soon as large and practical profits are to be made, who do they think is going to move in and take over? Yep, Boeing, LM, Northrop, and the other well healed experienced aerospace firms! <br /><br />Of course they will wait until the reliability and profitability of such businesses are established first, after all as private investor built and funded corporations they neither want nor need to take the initial risks involved here. <br /><br />And if you don't think that the likes of Elon Musk wouldn't sell out, how do you think he got the money for spacex in the first place? <br /><br />So the basic reality here is either support NASA's current plans to hopefully get out of LEO well within the next two decades, or just wait until such private efforts might be able to do the same thing in some four or five decades! <br /><br />Strangely enough in some ways I regret this situation as much as vt_hokie and others do. It is just that I have been around long enough, and seen enough to understand reality!<br /><br />Also, all of this discor

 

[frodo1008]

Another thing about the costs of such projects themselves. When people oppose various major projects of the federal government they use a technique that is at best somewhat dishonest. I have seen this in operation on military projects as well as NASA projects. Back in the 1970's I worked for some years on the original B1A bomber project, which as you all should know was an Air Force project and not a NASA one. The opponents to this new bomber used this technique extensively, and eventually were successful in having Jimmy Carter cancel it.<br /><br />What they do is to take ALL of the past, present and future (estimated costs, but the opponents take them as already expended monies anyway) and lump them together into one overwhelming (at least to the US taxpayer) cost! They took the total development cost from the very beginning of the B1 bomber paper studies, to the then flight test program. To this they added the total procurement costs of the 100 or so projected production run of the bombers. Then finally, they added the projected total costs of maintaining these planes for their projected lifetime of service of some thirty years. They then came up with an overall cost of some 100+ billion dollars for this project! And thus, they kill an otherwise worthwhile project!<br /><br />Of course, if you have any mathematical brains at all, you can easily see the fallacy in this approach. This $100 billion dollars is NOT going to be spent in one gigantic lump some! From the very beginning of the project to its end of usefulness is some 40 years! so the AVERAGE cost is only some $2.5 billion per year!<br /><br />But this is conveniently ignored by the people using this very negative technique to kill a program that they disagree sixth for whatever reasons that they really have, which are not usually economic to begin with!<br /><br />You can perhaps see where I am going with this. That is that NASA's two main projects of the last 35 years or so have been the STS (shuttle

 

[ragnorak]

Let's face it going to space is no easy trip and for a payload for a certain orbit your launcher has to be designed specifically for it. You can't just take a booster like the SRB and think it can transfer to being a manned launch vehicle. The SRB has gone from being four segment to five, its fuel has changed, it needs new gimbal tech for the nozzle, it has to have a adaptor to link to the second stage, it has to become a load bearing structure, but it will still be retrievable. Other than being retrievable I think the only shuttle derived bit will be the paint...

 

[frodo1008]

Thank you! A very reasonable analysis and post!

 

[mattblack]

>>Strangely enough in some ways I regret this situation as much as vt_hokie and others do. It is just that I have been around long enough, and seen enough to understand reality! <br /><br />Also, all of this discord in a community that is in itself a small minority must give those that would want NO progress in this area a big boost. While I have no problem with reasonable debate itself, it is this type of thing that I worry about far more than who is actually responsible for getting humanity into space in a big<br />way!<<<br /><br />Thanks, Frodo. Perfection in a post, my friend. I hope you're in charge of something important in aerospace. Right now, that is!!<br /> <br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[barrykirk]

Thank you Frodo, again very well said.<br /><br />The 5 segment SRB is probably not what I would have chosen, but then again, I don't have the experience or the information at hand that Mike Griffin does.<br /><br />And a lot of that information and experience is poltical as well as technical.<br /><br />Something may very well be technically easier but have a much higher political cost.<br /><br />Having said that, there are a number of places where the government will refuse to accept a vendor unless they can second source an item. It would be nice to have a second source for the SRB.

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>...and know what's technically do-able for the budget-strangled mediocrity that often dooms taxpayer funded manned space programs. </i><br /><br />If I have to settle for mediocrity, then I really have no interest in our space program anymore. I guess my excitement and interest died along with programs like NASP and X-33. <br /><br /><i>Aerospace should be moving onto something more capable than the Concorde, but it's NOT.</i><br /><br />I agree! 787 is a major disappointment after having the Sonic Cruiser killed. At least that would have been a small step toward faster commercial flights.

 

[mlorrey]

You are right, Frodo, that is an unfair tactic. But taxpayers should know the total per plane costs. Budgeters like to keep RD&T separate to keep the per plane costs down, and hide other costs as well. RD&T should be apportioned on a per plane basis, with comparisons of per plane cost based on the number of planes built. With a big enough R&D budget, you can buy either a large or small number of planes for essentially the same amount of money.<br /><br />Now, there are other things that opponents of programs can fairly do: they can look at past similar programs, and figure out how much in cost over runs, program delays there were, and how many planes were planned vs what got built, and come up with a realistic projection of what the real costs will be for the new program based on the history.<br /><br />I did this back in the early 90's with the proposed Seattle light rail system. I looked at light rail systems built elsewhere, how much they actually cost vs what was originally budgeted, compared that to the projected number of new mass transit riders vs what actually resulted, and figured out that the Seattle project was so huge that they could have saved money just buying every new mass transit rider a new BMW every five years for 40 years.

 

[vt_hokie]

<i> I looked at light rail systems built elsewhere, how much they actually cost vs what was originally budgeted, compared that to the projected number of new mass transit riders vs what actually resulted, and figured out that the Seattle project was so huge that they could have saved money just buying every new mass transit rider a new BMW every five years for 40 years. </i><br /><br />I find that hard to believe. A light rail system should not be that expensive, and they seem to work quite well in other cities, both in the United States and especially Europe.

 

[mlorrey]

Well, long story being short, I found that light rail systems typically underestimated the actual costs by 50%, and overestimated the number of new mass transit users as a result of construction, by 50%. As I recall, this meant that Seattle would have spend about $13 billion for a system that would only add about 17,000 new mass transit passengers a day for weekday commutes (they had originally estimated a cost of $8.3 billion and 34,000 new passengers daily.)<br /><br />You can do the math from there. If they wanted to get people off the highways, they could buy new telecommuting workstations for ten times as many people every other year for half the cost.<br /><br />Light rail systems are NOT cost effective. They "work" well in that they function, and in Europe, where getting a drivers license is more difficult and driving is much more expensive due to high vehicle and gas taxes, high auto insurance rates due to high rates of property crime, people use mass transit in europe because the inconvenience is worth the savings. We in the US have much lower property crime, much lower gas and vehicle taxes, much lower speed limits, more highways, and it is easier to get a drivers license. Furthermore, in the US, light rail systems only gain sufficient ridership when the cities they are in have a severe lack of downtown car parking, or engage in a campaign of getting rid of downtown parking capacity, which forces people to use mass transit. <br /><br />In order to make mass transit systems work, you have to be very fascist about getting rid of, or making access to, other alternatives very expensive. Most of the US isn't that fascist.

 

[mlorrey]

X-33 was not Venturestar. Venturestar was a larger follow-on to the X-33 program that Lockheed agreed to pay for with their own money. They agreed to split the cost of the X-33 with NASA. X-33 was never intended to reach orbit, it was simply to test and demonstrate the technologies that would go into the Venturestar. <br /><br />Individuals and parties that wanted to nix the project essentially redefined the terms of the project and justified cancellation of X-33 based on excuses that were never part of the original deal. The X-33 project would not have failed if NASA had not made up excuses to pull out of it. Lockheed built a replacement tank.<br /><br />The end of X-33 was essentially an assasination by the ICBM industry and their allied congressmen and senators.

 

[vt_hokie]

I'm just glad I live in the northeast, the only part of this country with decent rail transportation and the country's only high speed rail service, the Acela Express. But instead of hijacking this thread and sending it off topic, I'll just leave you with this link.<br /><br />http://nationalcorridors.org/

 

[mlorrey]

Acela is NOT a high speed rail service. It can't even reach half of its design speed for most of its route, due to poor tracks, local speed limits, and other trains on the tracks. <br /><br />rail projects like Acela are subsidies to big cities and destroy the quality of life of the communities the trains rip through. Rail is obsolescent technology for fascist societies. <br /><br />Acela is one more example of rail scam artists over promising and under delivering.

 

[vt_hokie]

The Acela can operate at its max revenue speed of 150 mph on only a couple of stretches in New England, but there is additional 135 mph track through New Jersey and a considerable amount of 125 mph track all along the Northeast Corridor. So, to say it can't even reach half its design speed along most of the route is untrue. Yes, the NEC could use some upgrades, but unlike Europe and Asia, the United States seems content with a decaying third world passenger rail system. As for destroying the quality of life in local communities, I grew up in New Jersey, and I don't see how that's the case at all. I think fewer highways and more rail would increase the quality of life, actually. Obviously, we are in complete disagreement on this issue.<br /><br />In case you're interested: http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/tgvindex.html<br /><br />http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/acela.html<br /><br />http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=12836&start=0

 

[mogster]

but unlike Europe and Asia, the United States seems content with a decaying third world passenger rail system<br />------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />The UK's still stuck with its Victorian rail infrastructure so its not just a US problem.<br /><br />As I see it railways are the ideal way to move large numbers of people short to medium distances, distances too short/frequent to be really practical by air. <br /><br />Quality high speed rail links between major cities make driving seem much less attractive. In the UK at least road congestion is a massive and growing problem. The railways have suffered from a lack of investment for years though so an ageing infrastructure is just repaired and maintained rather than being replaced with something better. <br /><br />There was a serious proposal put to the UK government about 6 months ago suggesting that the UK East and West coast main rail lines should be replaced with 300-400mph maglev systems . Ideal, but unfortunately it wont happen.

 

[vt_hokie]

Maglev will happen eventually, but it might be another generation. Unfortunately, it won't be the United States taking the lead, it seems. China has a 430 km/hr (267 mph) maglev train in operation in Shanghai. It was built by the German consortium "Transrapid".

 

[mlorrey]

All these ideas for mass transit run up against a brick wall of economic feasibility. The reason that governments build them is because they never have to show a profit. If they were at all economically feasible, then private companies would be building high speed rail everywhere.<br /><br />The place for high speed rail is not on old rail cargo lines. Most such lines go through the hearts of many small communities who now hate the rails. Those that are abandoned long enough get ripped up and converted to walking and biking trails that actually contribute to the local economy through tourism, and reduce actual road use by getting people going to work by foot or bike rather than by car.<br /><br />Its interesting that mass transit rail providers complain that cargo rail corridor owners have to pay property taxes while highways do not since they are government owned. Cargo rail owners pay for the taxes off their own cargo revinues, so there is no difference to the high speed rail proponents. <br /><br />The proper place to build high speed rails is in the median between north-south lanes on interstate highways, rather than blasting them through the centers of small towns and villages.

 

[vt_hokie]

No form of transportation is truly profitable. It's just that some subsidies are more hidden than others.

 

[scottb50]

There should be two compatable but different systems. A highspeed intercity line and an urban line. The highspeed line is built over the existing interstate highways and the urban lines over existing loops or major highways.<br /><br />Elevated interchangable and connectable cars on a concrete rail. Drive 5-10 miles to a station, drive onto the desired car and drive off at a destination station or transfer point. <br /><br />Concrete would be easiest to build using local or easily accessible resources. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mlorrey]

"The all electric, lightweight, Acela is a very good neighbor."<br /><br />You'll believe this until your kid (or one of your neighbors) doesn't get out of the way of one in time. These trains are very dangerous hazards to pedestrians and motorists. Their proponents want them to run on rails that cross through the busiest intersections of small communities. The corridor they want to run the Acela on from Boston to Montreal passes through my hometown, Lebanon, directly behind the Junior High School, and between it and the community Gym on one side, and the city pool on the other side. It does the same to Enfield, NH. If rail proponents get this corridor reactivated (it is currently a popular biking and walking trail), you will likely see some derailings, as well, given the legal history of the corridor (it was supposed to revert to the original landowners after it lay abandoned for 27 years, but the mass transit lobby jiggered the judge, who seized the land for the state in a constitutionally unsupportable decision.)

 

[vulture2]

mlorrey is correct that railroads are much safer if crossings are avoided. High-speed rails in Europe and Japan are fenced and use over- or underpasses where they cross roads rather than "grade crossings". <br /><br />Nevertheless 15.3 per 100,000 people died from motor vehicle injuries in USA 2001. (41,804 deaths in 2000) In contrast the NY Subway ran for decades without a single accidental death. Mass transit (including high speed rail) is much safer per passenger mile than driving. It appears only 6 people were killed in rail accidents in 2005, all in cars hit by trains at grade crossings.