If Apollo-Saturn was a beginning.

[NeoMorph]

So how the heck did this Musk guy, who never finished grad school, manage to design the first successful commercial space cargo vessel, whereas NASA's first dozen rockets blew up on the launch pad!?

Is he just that brilliant? Or are bureaucracies/committees/govt. projects just that inept? Or is it that there are plenty of experts to hire these days and Musk had the good business sense to hire the right ones and effectively facilitate them doing their jobs?

My answer is... "The South Pole Equation"

The first explorers to the south pole were braving a new world... something unknown and doing it was amazing. Now we have had a 16 year old girl do it. Not because it is easier but that the science of understanding how to do it has progressed.

The same can be said of space travel. One of the reasons that Apollo got cancelled was that everyone had got over the "WOW... THEY LANDED ON THE MOON" factor. The public just got over the wow factor of the first landing. Same was over the space shuttle. By the time the last shuttle landed it was like someone had just cancelled a bus service.

But why send people to do things that probes can't... and that is the thing... at the moment what we are doing is the science of understanding other planets. But eventually there will come a point where we will NEED to make colonies on other planets. Either that or start drastically reducing the population growth.

We are lucky that we are pretty much in a golden age... but it's not going to last forever because a lot of it is based on fossil fuels. And what happens when they run out... (which is another argument about how much fossil fuel is burned up in a single launch). The benefits we learn from space is going to benefit the future generations because research TAKES TIME. Because we don't see any benefit now shouldn't mean we should give up space travel.

What we need is a propulsion system that doesn't rely on fossil fuels and fully regenerating life support systems. Basically a miniature ecosystem in a spacecraft. But currently that is going to be way too big with the current tech. We need to learn more before we can get out there on other planets. Oh yeah, and understand how to protect our crews from radiation without having to have heavy shielding (currently water or lead).

Yes, we will get out there but for now it should be just robotics to LEARN the science first or we are going to be like Scott going for the Antarctic.

[DerekL1963]

I find that statement somewhat odd as it seems successful enough to me. Care to elaborate?

The data was provided to you, so no further elaboration is needed. You handwaved the data away, so simply repeating what you've already been told would serve little purpose.

[jwenting]

Yes, we will get out there but for now it should be just robotics to LEARN the science first or we are going to be like Scott going for the Antarctic.

people will NEVER warm again to space exploration and exploitation if all there are are a few probes. And we've gotten so risk averse I fear there never will be anything but probes, and even those are going to be exceedingly rare as the cost of building and launching them is ever increasing because of all the liability insurance, lawyers, and other leeches forcing safeguards for safeguards, backups for backups of those safeguards, etc. etc.

Would I strap a Redstone rocket on my back and see what happens while sitting in a Mercury capsule? I'd not pass the medical, but 20 years ago when I would have, hell yes I would.

But by now, and even 20 years ago, NASA can't launch a Mercury/Redstone because they'd never get it approved, it's "too risky, someone could get hurt".

We've devolved into a society of people scampering around the little electric heater (well shielded so nobody can burn himself on it) deep in a cave with a safety net around the entrance to keep out the wild animals, too scared to even go near the entrance for fear of what we might encounter there.

[King Arthur]

people will NEVER warm again to space exploration and exploitation if all there are are a few probes. And we've gotten so risk averse I fear there never will be anything but probes, and even those are going to be exceedingly rare as the cost of building and launching them is ever increasing because of all the liability insurance, lawyers, and other leeches forcing safeguards for safeguards, backups for backups of those safeguards, etc. etc.

Would I strap a Redstone rocket on my back and see what happens while sitting in a Mercury capsule? I'd not pass the medical, but 20 years ago when I would have, hell yes I would.

But by now, and even 20 years ago, NASA can't launch a Mercury/Redstone because they'd never get it approved, it's "too risky, someone could get hurt".

We've devolved into a society of people scampering around the little electric heater (well shielded so nobody can burn himself on it) deep in a cave with a safety net around the entrance to keep out the wild animals, too scared to even go near the entrance for fear of what we might encounter there.

I point to the Hubble Space Telescope (and the other Great Observatories), Kaguya (aka SELENE), Hayabusa, the trio of Mars Rovers Spirit/Opportunity/Curiosity, Deep Horizons, Voyager 1 and 2, Cassini-Huygens, and the many other robotic/unmanned missions past, present, and future to tell you that people can in fact be inspired by space exploration even today.

I for one grew up seeing the beautiful and mesmerizing pictures of the universe taken by Hubble and I was heartbroken when NASA said they were not going to service her following the Columbia disaster, but you know what happened then? Everyone, from school kids to Average Joes to space enthusiasts to scientists and engineers all around the world, all clamored for NASA to service her, and NASA finally decided to go for it because we collectively came to the conclusion that it was "worth the risk". Risk aversion? The best contingency plan NASA had was to send another shuttle (Atlantis!) which very likely would have the same problems as Endeavour if any problems occured during Endeavour's mission to Hubble, but NASA went for it anyway because Hubble was worth saving, and today Hubble is returning the favor by bringing us many more stunning pictures that continue to inspire us.

Do you want a non-US example? I point to Kaguya and Hayabusa. For the course of their missions, they were center-stage in Japanese news and the stunning HD videos of Earth taken from lunar orbit by Kaguya was the hot topic of the day. When Hayabusa encountered hardware problems regarding her ion engines that might possibly jeopardize the entire mission everyone was worried, and everyone was utterly jubilated when Hayabusa successfully completed its mission and came back safely to Earth; she also gave us a final, parting gift in the form of a B&W picture of the Earth that she took right before re-entry, the picture couldn't download completely in time and it came out incomplete, but I'll be damned if that wasn't one of the most thought-provoking pictures of the Earth I've seen yet.

So yes, people can be inspired by space. We want to explore space. We desire to learn about the universe. The question is how we go about it, and there is no denying that robotic/unmanned missions have so far been just as inspiring and thought-provoking as manned missions to the Moon have been.

EDIT: Oh, and remember Voyager 1? Just recently Voyager 1 sent back data about the magnetic fields outside of our solar system that was surprisingly not how we expected the magnetic fields out there to behave. To think that Voyager 1, launched so long ago, is still sending back information about our universe that we didn't know is just mindblowing and amazing.

Edited August 16, 2013 by King Arthur

[NeoMorph]

people will NEVER warm again to space exploration and exploitation if all there are are a few probes. And we've gotten so risk averse I fear there never will be anything but probes, and even those are going to be exceedingly rare as the cost of building and launching them is ever increasing because of all the liability insurance, lawyers, and other leeches forcing safeguards for safeguards, backups for backups of those safeguards, etc. etc.

Have to say that you are right in the public not getting turned on by probes... but hmmm what about MSL (Mars Science Laboratory, commonly known as Curiosity). How many people can you ask that DON'T know what the "Seven Minutes of Terror" was about. Even if they just say "That Mars thing" points out that they are aware of it happening. Ask someone about what the shuttle carried up to the ISS and most will have no clue. Hint about the Multi-Purpose Logistics Module and they will go "What?".

Oh and people never warming to space exploration?

I’m frankly amazed at how much public interest there is in Curiosity. It far exceeds anything we ever imagined. After it landed, because it was so popular because of the ‘seven minutes of terror,’ we kind of thought it would spike and go away, and I think to some degree it has. But it’s amazing to me how many people follow it. And I think it may have been just the right mission for this country at just the right time.

Hmmm... beginning to change my mind about the public attitude to probes now.

One thing that was different about the Seven Minutes of Terror is that IT INTRODUCED RISK into the program... and people watched it, expecting it to go BOOOOM (some people are wired that way... you can find them team killing in COD). But when it landed successfully a surprising number of people kept following what the thing does.

THAT'S what the space program needs... a risky incident that will grab peoples attention... I think I'll call it the "Apollo 13 Effect" or just the "13 Effect". That scary bit of luck that goes the wrong way and then the scientists work to overcome and succeed. The whole world followed 13... and that mission was classed as a "successful failure". They didn't even land on the moon but people were watching for info at all hours of the day.

So yeah... the Curiosity mission isn't a manned one but it made the public... curious. Perhaps the designs of probes with guys like this would make us follow it more...

[nhnifong]

That sure is a cute robot

[NeoMorph]

They should make one that looks like a Kerbal now I come to think of it...

[Thaniel]

Well, when biped robots get a decent AI so they can traverse mars-like terrain, launching a mission with a couple of humanoids like that, powered by NTR´s or something, I think people would either scream for a manned mission before the robots take the planet from us, or at the very least be fascinated by it.

[Uncle Mort]

The data was provided to you, so no further elaboration is needed. You handwaved the data away, so simply repeating what you've already been told would serve little purpose.

Sorry, I've been told nothing. Stinkk listed the Falcon program that to me, (and I note, another) certainly didn't imply an unsuccessful business or one that in your words: "If it were a commercial airliner, it would likely be grounded and under investigation". I also went back through the thread thinking I may have missed an early argument from you. Nowt. So I guess you're the one handwaving.

[The Jedi Master]

Well, when biped robots get a decent AI so they can traverse mars-like terrain, launching a mission with a couple of humanoids like that, powered by NTR´s or something, I think people would either scream for a manned mission before the robots take the planet from us, or at the very least be fascinated by it.

They DO have a decent AI. Look at that thing--interacting with children with more than random phrases, navigating zero gravity...

[CleverClothe]

Falcon 1: 5 launches, 3 failures. 60% failure rate.

Falcon 1e: 5 scheduled launches, all cancelled.

Falcon 9 v1: 5 launches, 1 partial failure. 10% failure rate.

Falcon 9 v1.1: None flown.

A cheaper space launch company is great, but don't let your self get sucked into the hype too much.

Also I personally believe that once SpaceX has a pretty strong business going they'll just up their prices to what the market can bare, like all the previous commercial space companies have done.

Lets add some context.

Atlas A: 8 launches, 4 failures. 50% failure rate.

Atlas B: 10 launches, 4 failures. 40% failure rate.

Atlas C: 6 launches, 3 failures. 50% failure rate.

Atlas D: 194 launches, 30 failures. 15% failure rate.

Titan I: 68 launches, 13 failures. 19% failure rate.

Titan II: 92 launches, 4 failures. 4% failure rate.

Proton-K: 323 launches, 35 failures. 10.8% failure rate.

R7 (non-Soyuz): 842 launches, 88 failures. 11% failure rate.

Soyuz: 906 launches, 25 failures. 3% failure rate.

Ariane 1: 11 launches, 2 failures. 18% failure rate.

Ariane 2: 6 launches, 1 failure. 17% failure rate.

Ariane 3: 11 launches, 1 failure. 9% failure rate.

Ariane 4: 116 launches, 3 failures. 3% failure rate.

Ariane 5: 69 launches, 4 failures. 6% failure rate.

What does this all mean? Well, I think the only real comparisons to SpaceX that we can draw are that test vehicles often fail and the Falcon program is still young. But it is progressing at a more measured pace than earlier programs and its record so far is quite good.

[nhnifong]

Since failure rate decreases with the number of launches (and hence re-designs) perhaps rockets should be compared by the rate that the failures exponentially decay.

[DerekL1963]

Sorry, I've been told nothing. Stinkk listed the Falcon program that to me, (and I note, another) certainly didn't imply an unsuccessful business or one that in your words: "If it were a commercial airliner, it would likely be grounded and under investigation". I also went back through the thread thinking I may have missed an early argument from you. Nowt. So I guess you're the one handwaving.

You have to be kidding me. You simply cannot be serious.

You think an aircraft with the success rate of the Falcon 9 wouldn't be grounded? You think an aircraft with the ongoing problems that Dragon has had wouldn't be grounded? You're living in a dreamworld if you think they wouldn't be. You haven't noticed the Dreamliner grounded for non fatal battery fires?

Or, to put it in perspective, you're putting yourself in the same box with the guys who insisted that o-ring erosion wasn't a serious problem. After all, it didn't kill a crew.... until it did.

[Uncle Mort]

Silly me ~ I completely forgot that the Falcon 9 is a commercial airliner.

Looking at the post two above yours I'd say the success rate of the Falcon 9 is comparable with other early rocket designs, the Atlas obviously, which went on to be man-rated.

Now I note you've throw in a mention of the Dragon. What ongoing problems is it having?

N.B. this is a serious question and I'll ignore the remark implying I'm cavalier with peoples lives.

[Albert VDS]

The F9 didn't have an unsuccessful mission yet.

It's designed to recalculate the accent if an engine fails.

The Dragon's thruster failure was fixed and only delayed the rendezvous with the ISS.

The only reason to be grounded if these were manned missions.

I think your perspective is off. The O-ring disaster involved a manned spacecraft and poor decisions by NASA.

SpaceX didn't have any indication that the engine would shut down, after engine shutdown it still had a launch.

You are trying to put total disaster and recover capability in the same boat.

[Drunkrobot]

Gentlemen, you are going off-topic. If you wish to continue your discussion, then one of you begin a new thread, and move it there. I hardly think your opinions are totally worthless, I just want people who are interested in this thread to get what they expect.

[Uncle Mort]

Quite right Drunkrobot.

Although a future where Apollo/Saturn V continued would have meant some more Moon landings and possibly a large modular space station based on empty S-IVB stages, I don't see it going beyond that until the development of a reusable shuttle (or a "super" Apollo capsule) and Nerva type nuclear engines. With that and the heavy lift capability of the Saturn V then Mars would become a reasonable goal.

[sojourner]

There were plans to make the first stage of Saturn V recoverable:

http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum29/HTML/000880.html