The end of NASA

[SuperFastJellyfish]

7 hours ago, Cassel said:

AND? The Chinese have made their space station 10 times cheaper?

All space stations aren't created equal.  The ISS is immense compared to Tiangong.

[insert_name]

7 hours ago, Cassel said:

What component of the space shuttle came from the Apollo mission?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AJ10

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-4D

[magnemoe]

[snip]

Summarize it well, Musk is a bit like Edison, not the first who thought up something not even the first to try it but the first to success with it.
Note that the last part can easy be seen as the most important one.  Seen again with Tesla, note that the Musk's primary purpose with Tesla was to make electrical cars cool, that succeeded very well. 

And frankly I don't see NASA would ever try SpaceX way of perfecting first stage landing. Take an first stage after separation try to land it.
Its too Kerbal, its also the most efficient way to do it, stage is used and using it for trying out landings just cost the extra hardware on it. 
However don't see it work well in an bureaucratic organisation, some will complain about all the failed landing and lost stages

On the other hand, NASA tend to do end of life high risk operations on probes like entering Saturn's atmosphere.  

On the gripping hand the Kerbal try until it stops blowing up will not work with BFR, yes unless a fool you expect to loose a couple but its not the sort of stuff you ripple fire until works. 

 

Edited October 20, 2018 by Snark
Redacted by moderator

[DerekL1963]

On 10/19/2018 at 12:28 AM, Cassel said:

The Chinese have made their space station 10 times cheaper?

I'm always fascinated by space fanbois and their utter obsession with "cheap".  By their logic, when I went to buy a new computer I should have bought a bare bones Raspberry Pi board rather than a fully loaded i5-8400 based machine.  After all, cheaper is better!  However in the real world however, capabilities matter.  What you get for your money matters.

Tiangong may be 10 times cheaper...  But it also had 1% of the lifetime and maybe about the same 1% or so in capability and capability.

[snip]

Edited October 20, 2018 by Snark
Redacted by moderator

[YNM]

7 minutes ago, magnemoe said:

not the first who thought up something not even the first to try it but the first to success with it.

Edison perfected the vaccuum inside the bulb. That's new.

Musk just made a company and that's it. Whoever made it work is someone in their R&D department.

Edited October 19, 2018 by YNM

[magnemoe]

1 hour ago, YNM said:

Edison perfected the vaccuum inside the bulb. That's new.

Musk just made a company and that's it. Whoever made it work is someone in their R&D department.

Granted unlike Edison at the light bulb stage he did not do much hand on work. 
He was the leader however. Again the program to develop landing first stages was genial, progress, execution and how it worked out. 
Stuff like rockets are also some order of magnitude more complex than that Edison did who you can replicate in an garage today. 
You can not build an WW1 battleship with a couple of friends even if its 100 year old technology
 

[YNM]

4 hours ago, magnemoe said:

Stuff like rockets are also some order of magnitude more complex than that Edison did who you can replicate in an garage today. 

True. But again, did he acrually did the down-to-numbers crunching ? Is he anywhere close to what Wernher did ?

[cineboxandrew]

16 hours ago, Cassel said:

I forgot about the Dragon, a capsule that can land using engines. What NASA program did this idea and technology come from?

The DC-X

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

I really doubt that the military would care more about exploration than NASA. Or that they would run a more efficient program. Government programs are, for better or worse, government programs. They don't have the luxury of being able to take big risks, mess up, or bet everything on something everyone says is impossible. SpaceX can do that, and NASA could do that too once. I don't know what kind of perfect storm conspired to let that happen, but I doubt the current US military could replicate it, or even if it would be desirable. SpaceX also has NASA to thank for at least some of its success, since they created contracts which SpaceX could compete for.

I also don't ethically like the militarization of space, and although that is a personal opinion, it is one which I hope is shared by others. This isn't really the place to get into that though.

In short, I think NASA and the military's goals are far from aligned, and the results NASA gets, at least for their science programs, are more than worth the cost.

19 hours ago, Cassel said:

They have not carried out any major mission for 50 years.

You might want to check your timing, the last 50 years includes the entirety of the moon landings.

Edited October 20, 2018 by Mad Rocket Scientist
Apollo program -> moon landings

[Ultimate Steve]

25 minutes ago, Mad Rocket Scientist said:

You might want to check your timing, the last 50 years includes the entirety of the Apollo program.

Your point is extremely valid and I fully agree with you, but I must nitpick, Apollo 7 and before were over 50 years ago.

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

6 minutes ago, Ultimate Steve said:

Your point is extremely valid and I fully agree with you, but I must nitpick, Apollo 7 and before were over 50 years ago.

Thanks for catching that.

[Cassel]

[snip]

Quote

Plus, programs would be just as bloated, or delayed. Just look at the f-22. Nothing would change in that respect. Things like the Senate launch system would still be Senate launch system under the military. Under that respect, why not just push to make NASA's budget more efficient?

The destruction of the F-22 production line is a political decision, I do not want to talk about it here, but outside the US it looks different.
SLS in the hands of the army would have to work, and that's because, if it did not work, someone else overtook the US army winning a strategic point on the moon and would force military action (war).

[snip]

On 10/19/2018 at 2:38 AM, sh1pman said:

@Cassel SLS is going to use a lot of Shuttle technologies.

A) You happy now?

B) Does it make SLS a better rocket?

Above all, this should make SLS a cheaper rocket that has been operating for a long time. If this is not the case, then there is something wrong with using already proven technologies.

Edited October 20, 2018 by Snark
Redacted by moderator

[YNM]

[snip]

 

10 hours ago, Cassel said:

If this is not the case, then there is something wrong with using already proven technologies.

Hmm... *looks at civil engineering*

If it works and ain't broke then you ain't change it.

Maybe there's something fundamentally wrong about the whole thing in the first place. Or maybe it's just the way stuff is.

But good lord how many of those stuff you'll find in military.

Edited October 20, 2018 by Snark
Redacted by moderator

[Cassel]

20 hours ago, razark said:

"The history of the RS-25 traces back to the 1960s when NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center and Rocketdyne were conducting a series of studies on high-pressure engines, developed from the successful J-2 engine used on the S-II and S-IVB upper stages of the Saturn V rocket during the Apollo program. The studies were conducted under a program to upgrade the Saturn V engines, which produced a design for a 350,000 lbf upper-stage engine known as the HG-3. As funding levels for Apollo wound down the HG-3 was cancelled as well as the upgraded F-1 engines already being tested. It was the design for the HG-3 that would form the basis for the RS-25."

SSME came out of work on Apollo.  One minor example.

So the Apollo program cost $19,408,134,000 in 1960-1973 (what would be few times as many today) and it was possible to use only engines and not quite as they used during the Apollo mission, because you had to improve them?

20 hours ago, razark said:

 

"The Space Launch System's Core Stage will be 8.4 meters (28 ft) in diameter and use four RS-25 engines. Initial flights will use modified RS-25D engines left over from the Space Shuttle program; later flights are expected to switch to a cheaper version of the engine not intended for reuse. The stage's structure will consist of a modified Space Shuttle external tank with the aft section adapted to accept the rocket's Main Propulsion System (MPS) and the top converted to host an interstage structure."

Hey!  There's that engine again!  Even Apollo is still in the game.

Great, program cost $196,000,000,000 and you have another engine.
 

20 hours ago, razark said:

 

Hrm.  I guess you got me there.  Elon invented two-stage rockets himself, and the idea of reusable  space vehicles has never been done before.

NASA didn't invented rockets :-)
 

20 hours ago, razark said:

 

Right.  NASA has never been able to propulsively land a crewed vehicle.

 

And where is the technology today? Who and how does it use it?

 

20 hours ago, razark said:

But you seem to be missing the point.  It's not all about reusing the same engines, or fuel pumps, or screws, or computers.  It's about information, too.  What works and what doesn't.  The behavior of fluids in a tank in zero-g.  The reaction of the human body to prolonged spaceflight.  All the research done prior to SpaceX even existing was done, and it wasn't done by SpaceX.  SpaceX didn't have to reinvent the rocket, and life support, and navigation, and every other thing.  Materials research, physics, how to live and work in space, etc.  All this is data that SpaceX is not reinventing from basic principles.  That data exists because others, mostly NASA, have already done a lot of the hard work.  Remember the bit about standing on the shoulders of giants? 

Great, so where is the technology that NASA invented? Who uses it? Even NASA can not use its own technology and send a man to the moon again, instead they load billions more into an Orion capsule and SLS that exists only to bring Orion into the orbit of the moon.
No wonder that when reasonable people look at the numbers and use these funds, every year they cut them off NASA budget.

 

20 hours ago, razark said:

Now, it's your turn.  What has SpaceX done that hasn't been done before, and how much would they have gotten done if they weren't being funded by NASA, or chasing NASA contracts?

This is not only about SpaceX, but also about Blue Origin. Both companies use similar technology, cheap, reusable rockets. NASA has never used such rockets.

17 hours ago, DerekL1963 said:

I'm always fascinated by space fanbois and their utter obsession with "cheap".  By their logic, when I went to buy a new computer I should have bought a bare bones Raspberry Pi board rather than a fully loaded i5-8400 based machine.  After all, cheaper is better!  However in the real world however, capabilities matter.  What you get for your money matters.

Tiangong may be 10 times cheaper...  But it also had 1% of the lifetime and maybe about the same 1% or so in capability and capability.

Only a delusional fool would somehow believe that made Tiangong somehow "better" to anyone whose goal wasn't simply "having a space station to show off".  (Contrary to the delusions of many, that's exactly what China's space program has been to date - just big enough to serve as a propaganda tool.)

It depends on what you need. I do not think it makes sense to spend billions on something that you use only 1%? Perhaps the Chinese will need this 1% to develop the technology they will use, why should they overpay and work on something they will not use for the next 50 years?

18 hours ago, insert_name said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AJ10

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-4D

Is it nice just a little bit of such expensive programs?

8 hours ago, cineboxandrew said:

The DC-X

So, another lost money? They invented something, somehow it flew, but it was not used and today no one uses this technology?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X#Program_cost
 

Quote

cost of around $60 million [10] in 1991 dollars.[5] This is equivalent to $108 million in present-day (2014) terms

Where does inflation come from? Well, throwing hundreds of billions into something you do not use.

[Green Baron]

10 hours ago, Cassel said:

And where is the technology today? Who and how does it use it?

Everywhere. Some developed further, some abandoned, some put on the shelf for later use.

Quote

This is not only about SpaceX, but also about Blue Origin. Both companies use similar technology, cheap, reusable rockets. NASA has never used such rockets.

Again, people here have told you, these companies are largely funded by NASA. And NASA overlooks their work, helps avoid problems, provides technology and help in case of mishaps. None of them would exist without a civil space program. The cause of the two SpaceX accidents might even be somewhat nebulous without the help of NASA.

The ISS would not exist, and thus there would be no need for the development of manned capsules. People are not on the moon because there is no incentive, no need. There is absolutely nothing interesting there. Technologically it is not that big a problem as it was in the 60s, but why spend that money and resource ? It is still a huge enterprise. Exploration inform of telescopes, probes, etc. brings us much farther these days.

Until some day maybe someone starts again with manned spaceflight.

[snip]

 

Edited October 20, 2018 by Snark
Redacted by moderator

[Cassel]

33 minutes ago, YNM said:

 

If it works and ain't broke then you ain't change it.

 

Apollo program was broke? Space shuttles were broke?

Quote

Maybe there's something fundamentally wrong about the whole thing in the first place. Or maybe it's just the way stuff is.

But good lord how many of those stuff you'll find in military.

So why is it different with cars, ships and airplanes?

I will repeat myself:
"There is no such a natural transition of technology as it is seen in other industries:
a horse-drawn car, a combustion car, a hybrid, an electric car.
A biplane airplane, a monoplane with an internal combustion engine, a jet plane, and a supersonic airplane.
Sailing ship, ship powered by a steam engine, a ship powered by a combustion engine, a ship with electric drive (I read about such plans)."

 

Edited October 20, 2018 by Cassel

[Cassel]

10 hours ago, Green Baron said:

Everywhere. Some developed further, some abandoned, some put on the shelf for later use.

Or never used, because someone else invented better tech :-)
As long as development was for private money it is ok, but if it is NASA it is wrong.

Quote

Again, people here have told you, these companies are largely funded by NASA. And NASA overlooks their work, helps avoid problems, provides technology and help in case of mishaps. None of them would exist without a civil space program. The cause of the two SpaceX accidents might even be somewhat nebulous without the help of NASA.
 

They are doing things people at NASA couldn't do for last 50 years.
If SpaceX and Blue Origin really use a lot of technologies that NASA puts aside on the shelf, as something useless, it only shows worse about the people who work for NASA.

[snip]

Edited October 20, 2018 by Snark
Redacted by moderator

[YNM]

16 hours ago, Cassel said:

Apollo program was broke? Space shuttles were broke?

Yes. Very.

Let's not forget of how precarious Shuttle was and how many bodges Apollo has went through. Even with 99% parts reliability, on a single flight with, say, 100,000 different moving parts, that's still 1,000 parts failing.

But I think you're missing the point a bit - it's just the tolerance level in rocketry is a lot higher, even after a lot of engineering, because it is simply bloody difficult. If they had went the way civil engineering did (with a lot of precautions and safety and longevity), Apollo wouldn't even be possible in the year 2500 AD.

So it's not that reusing a proven design is not viable, it's just that rocketry is expensive. (SpaceX has taxpayers and sunken costs to give their thanks.)

As for cars ? Let's say, keeping a meat behind the steering of a fast-moving object is always a risk.

Edited October 21, 2018 by Vanamonde

[Cassel]

14 hours ago, YNM said:

Yes. Very.

Let's not forget of how precarious Shuttle was and how many bodges Apollo has went through. Even with 99% parts reliability, on a single flight with, say, 100,000 different moving parts, that's still 1,000 parts failing.

But I think you're missing the point a bit - it's just the tolerance level in rocketry is a lot higher, even after a lot of engineering, because it is simply bloody difficult. If they had went the way civil engineering did (with a lot of precautions and safety and longevity), Apollo wouldn't even be possible in the year 2500 AD.

So it's not that reusing a proven design is not viable, it's just that rocketry is expensive. (SpaceX has taxpayers and sunken costs to give their thanks.)

As for cars ? Let's say, keeping a meat behind the steering of a fast-moving object is always a risk.

What about the army way?
The Americans developed the B-52 around 1950 and those are still flying. In the meantime, many things have been improved, but every 20 years they did not make a revolution and did not throw out the proven equipment and money, they gradually improved it.
Thanks to this they have achieved reliability, because reliability is something that has proven technology and proven design, not a new revolutionary approach that maybe will work.

Edited October 21, 2018 by Vanamonde

[YNM]

7 hours ago, Cassel said:

Americans developed the B-52 around 1950 and those are still flying.

Reengined, restrengthened, rebuild.

They're just making new airplanes from old parts. It's not a novel idea in aviation - new rebuild airplane piston engines aren't completely new, but is as good as new.

Then again, we were talking of NASA as an organization, compared to a "SpAcE fOrCe". They'll still do the same engineering-wise, but vision-wise they're soo [snip] different.

Edited October 20, 2018 by Snark
Redacted by moderator

[Lisias]

36 minutes ago, Cassel said:

What about the army way?

Not cost effective.

The first prototype had a cost of about 1 Billion USD (in nowadays currency). And they made another 2.

The first 50 production planes came at a cost of 260M each. As time goes by, the production cost dropped to about 85M each for the last delivered planes in 1963. But it took about 10 years 742 airplanes manufactured to get to his value.

So, the total cost of the B-52 program is about: 55.9 BILLION USD in modern currency, what gave us a mean cost of 75M USD for 742 aircrafts manufactured (plus 3 prototypes). But I can't think there're a market for 740 space planes today.  (and, by the way, I can't say how much was spent on maintenance and flights because I don't have such numbers).

One can argue that the Space Shuttle Program had cost 196 Billion USD (nowadays money) for 30 years service, and here we have the opposite way: we don't have the breakdown of the plane's cost. But we know that each flight had a cost of about 450M. Since we know that there were 135 missions, we have a 135 * 450M = 60750M = 60.7Billion. So we can assume we had a total cost in hardware of 196 - ~60, 136B USD, or about 136/6 = 22B per shuttle - but this includes the Enterprise and support hardware as launch pad.

My guessed costs on the B52 doesn't include the pricing of the specialized support equipment neither facilities (as the Shuttle numbers have them embedded), so a direct comparison is difficult. But with the numbers we have, we can infer that the Military would not ha done too much cheaper.

Sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_B-52_Stratofortress

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_program#Program_history

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle#Fleet_history

Edited October 20, 2018 by Lisias

[Snark]

A large amount of content has been redacted or outright removed from the thread, due to a total meltdown:

• Total derailment of thread into off-topic areas
• Rampant politics
• Personal attacks, insults, name-calling, profanity
• Comparing some countries as better or worse than other countries

A meltdown in which, I might add, numerous people who really ought to know better were eagerly pouring more gasoline on the fire instead of comporting themselves as collegial members of the KSP community.

Look, folks, I know you know all this stuff:

• Keep it on-topic, please. This thread's about NASA, and whether it will continue, and whether it's good to continue.
  • Fine things to talk about:  NASA.  Alternatives to NASA.  The economics of spaceflight.  The history of spaceflight.  Technological development and other benefits from spaceflight.
  • Not-okay things to talk about:  Politics.  Ascribing motives to people.  Arguing about historical matters other than spaceflight.  Personal opinions about warfare or the military.
• Don't talk politics.  NASA is a government institution, as are other countries' space administrations, so a slight political tinge is probably unavoidable.  But please try to keep it on the topic of NASA's effectiveness at its job, practical alternatives to it, economics, etc.  Don't get into arguments about countries' motives, or compare the merits of countries, or get into rationales for/against military action.
• No personal attacks.  Honestly, people, you know better than this.  If you disagree with someone, fine-- but make your arguments by giving your own rational reasons, citing evidence, etc.  Name-calling doesn't get you anywhere.  It basically means "I'm out of ideas and I'm losing the argument so I'm going to yell, instead."  It's also not nice.  It's also against forum rules.  So please don't do it.

I am now, with a certain amount of trepidation, going to re-open the thread.  I am doing so in the hope that the fine members of this forum can remember to behave themselves like polite, civil adults, and can resist the temptation to lob political grenades at each other.  Please keep the abovementioned problems out of your posts.  We'd love to allow discussion to continue, but if this devolves into political bickering again, we may need to lock the thread and/or hand out harsher consequences.

I know you believe passionately in what you believe in, and that you have reasons for it.  That's great. 

Just please remember that not everyone agrees with you-- and the ones who disagree have just as much right to be passionate as you do, and they have their reasons too.  So yelling and name-calling is inappropriate.  Engage, don't enrage.

Thank you for your understanding.  Opening the thread now.  I trust we can get along?

[razark]

11 hours ago, Cassel said:

Great, so where is the technology that NASA invented? Who uses it?

It's all around you.  You have been given some of the many examples. 

[snip]

Edited October 20, 2018 by Snark
Redacted by moderator

[Spaceception]

12 hours ago, Cassel said:

snip

 

I don't have anything to your questions that would be within the rules of this thread or forum.

But NASA receives more money than the next ~7 or so countries combined. It could do a lot. So instead of moving its problems under a different roof, we should "fix" what we have. What that entails is based on yours and my opinions, and breaks the rules though.

NASA could focus more of their resources on R&D, and exploration, and leave the launch vehicles - and in extreme scenarios, crewed spaceflight as well - to private companies instead. I can see how that's attractive. The public space sector is great at developing new technology, and a wealth of scientific data. And the private space sector is great at making it cheaper. And with upcoming rockets like the BFR, Vulcan, and New Glenn, and current vehicles like the Falcon 9/Heavy, among others, those payloads would be in good hands.

If NASA did that, you could probably look forward to more "out there" projects to remain in the public eye. Such as, advanced propulsion - NTR - Ion - Fusion(?) - improved chemical engines - etc, centrifuges for artificial gravity, more telescopes, Europa - Enceladus - Titan - etc explorers, life support technology for the purpose of colonization, the list goes on (Not all at once of course, but in due time). Basically expanding, and accelerating what we have. And instead of contracting specific launch vehicles - like the SLS - they would give contracts to companies for their upcoming launch vehicles - like when they gave SpaceX money to develop the Falcon 9. Which I believe is a lot less in the long run. We could also see an increase in planetary probes overall. Including ones to Mercury, Venus, Uranus, and Neptune. Planets that don't get a whole lot of attention compared to Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn.

Edited October 20, 2018 by Spaceception

[Lisias]

40 minutes ago, Spaceception said:

But NASA receives more money than the next ~7 or so countries combined. It could do a lot. So instead of moving its problems under a different roof, we should "fix" what we have. 

Problem with NASA funding is that, by being funded by politicians, such funding came with a lot of strings attached. 

To each Congressman vote, there's at least one demand. "I need to bring the pork home" - or something like that, I'm on mobile, hard to search for the right term - but I found a link about. See below. 

A lot of the Shuttle expenses, for example, are due the pork barrel. In exchanges for the funding, they had to produce things on some sub optimal places, rising costs. But once the alternative is loosing tbe votes, so loosing the funds...

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pork_barrel