~Jon

Gee, was that a dig at me, Jon?

Even if it wasn’t, let me explain my rationale for making the point that advances in material sciences will be a game-changer in RLV development. First off, I agree that you don’t need “unobtanium” for a practical RLV, but if nanotube technology and other materials make rapid strides, they are a viable option for use in large portions of an RLV structure. I’m convinced that nanotube-derived structural components will be in use on large portions of some aircraft within a decade. Since I don’t see RLV development moving very fast, such timing will be ideal for would-be RLV developers to seriously consider designing their vehicle with a substantial amount of nanotube or other derived lighter weight structural components. Since it is highly likely that a robust aircraft or launch vehicle could be built beyond a decade from now with substantial, even dramatic, reduction in fuselage weight, then it is very likely that an RLV could be built without pushing the outer envelope for materials technology. In other words, lighter weight nanotube-derived or reinforced materials will be very affordable and the tchnology for manufactuirng large vehicle components will be mature.

—–

Interesting questions. Answers: (1) Not much, and (2) No.

Now, some questions of my own. (1) Creating reasonably self sustaining colonies or industrial enterprises on the moon, on other planets, at L-5 colonies, or whatever is likely to be extremely expensive by current standards. The economic payoff is likely to be small for many years to come. Considering manned spaceflight simply as a possible business investment, should US taxpayers be asked to pay the bill?

(2) If the answer is No, should we mind if other nations with less perfect political and economic institutions take our place in conquering the solar system? Or, trying to look backward from centuries in the future, would it make sense for the US to explore and exploit the planets, preempting manned space programs by say China, Japan, and India, even if such schemes look very silly in AD 2009? (2a) If the US government is unwilling to exploit/colonize the solar system, should American businessmen take on the job? For our future well being, if not their own? (2b) If American businessmen won’t exploit/colonize the solar system (without some extraordinary inducement) even though this looks desirable in the long term, should the American government take over the task? (2c) If business and government can’t afford space programs of such magnitude or such dubious future value, should they attempt to keep the possibility open for the future, say by — let’s be imaginative! — running a taxpayer-funded $17 billion dollar civilian space program, about one third of which keeps alive an undemanding space station construction program and rockets which suffice to push people into low earth orbit? (2d) Is there any sane world in which one can imagine such an LEO-based based program lasting for over 40 years? With what drugs should we treat people with such illusions?

(3) The world is filled with people who have a very dim idea of US-Western European technological prowess and economic strength, who think that in a proper world they too would be rich but evial conquistadores and capitalists have unfairly deprived them of the wealth they should enjoy — Chileans who think Chilean copper mines ought to belong to Chile, Mexicans who think Mexican oil fields ought to belong to PetroMex, Indonesians who think rubber trees and orangutans and other natural wonders should belong to (non-Chinese-speaking) Indonesians, etc. etc. (This is not the complete story, of course, but there is a great deal of truth in such claims). These people will not react cheerfully and patiently to the idea that the Wealth of The Solar System belongs to the bold, domineering, venturesome, risk-taking entrepeneurs of the American-Western European-East Asian world. Their representatives will vote against us in the UN, for example, on space issues and others. Explain succinctly how the US government should respond to such issues in the coming centuries. (3a) For extra credit, try running your answer past the crew that currently is in charge of the US State Department. You lose points for bureaucrats who die laughing.

(4) At any given moment, about one US citizen in three thinks that large scale space flight and colonization is an inevitable part of the human future. Half of these folks think we should work hard and pay taxes to bring on this desirable future. The others think of it something that “They” are going to do in the future, willy nilly, so it requires no further thought. One third of the electorate has no particular about the inevitability of spaceflight, but resents the “fact” that 20-30% of their taxes is used to pay for it. And one third of the electorate is absolutely furious that their hard-earned money is being taxed to pay for something as useless as manned space programs when there are so many unfilled needs here on earth, for health programs, for income maintenance programs, for medical research into “orphan” diseases, for peacekeeping in Darfur, for combatting AIDS, for combatting homophobia, for meeting our energy needs, for bringing peace between Israelis and Palestineans, for saving unwanted kittens from slaughter, for treating autism and mental illness, for …. Mostly. the people in the latter two groups have come to tolerate a space program (manned and unmanned) such as the US rns now, but the thought of change fires up their blood. They write angry blog posts, now and they write angry letters (or e-mail) to their representatives; sometimes they get angry enough to burn down cities. (4a) Describe a US government-run manned space program acceptable to all three groups. (4b) Describe a space program acceptable to all three groups that doesn’t involve massive disinformation or top secret security measures.

(5) Reconsider your original questions. Didn’t you know the answers in advance? Having answered my questions, do you have other questions to ask?

The same launch vehicle that lifts 6 people is now lifting 35 people, so the launch cost per person is 1/5.

Indeed. Because as I see it, even a “Jenny” level RLV could drastically change the way people view things. Right now, the bulk of people think RLVs are impossible without magic new technologies like nuclear rockets or nanotube-reinforced Unobtanium Wishalloy X composites. Even a modest RLV that was tiny, but was fully reusable would make such a huge difference in changing opinions. Even if it’s cost per pound were on par with Russian ELVs, I think it could still revolutionize things (and really start opening up some major new markets).

~Jon

Operational, but not in many cases profitable: what was really revolutionary about the DC-3 was, as American’s C.R. Smith (the first buyer) said, that it was the first aircraft that could make money in pure passenger service without government subsidy. (Yes, children, there was lots of ongoing subsidy for infant airlines in the free-market USA as well as socialistic Old Europe, and even after the Kelly Act of 1925.)

The DC-3 (1936) sets too high a bar for now. I’d be ecstatic to see spacecraft reach a cost/performance level comparable to the Curtiss JN-4 “Jenny” of 1915.

~Jon

Pushing the envelope maybe a wonderful engineering strategy, if you have a budget and time, but for NASA that simply was not possible. The people there had to come up with Something Wonderful That Was Not Apollo, and they had to do it PDQ. Or they could simply threaten to close the doors and send everyone home.

In retrospect, NASA might have been better off to threaten just that — to close down the agency unless Congress a/o the White House came through with sensible funding. But again, it wasn’t possible. No one in the ferslugginer world expected the USA to spend another 40-50 years limited to LEO; what people in NASA thought — and outside contractors such as me believed– was that the post Apollo drop in NASA funding was a temporary thing, due to some transitory politics, and that in five or six years space spending would start ramping up again. We’d get a space station going at last AND a second generation shuttle AND a proper Lunar base AND start planning for a Mars expedition….

Building a not-so wonderful version of the space shuttle in that era while proclaiming it WAS wonderful was just politics — it was the price NASA had to pay to continue in existence. So the cost savings were bogus? The cost savings were given away by OMB decree everytime the shuttle development program got cut. (Don’t believe me — go to a library and read back issues of Aviation Week — we’re not dealing in secrets here.) So the figures promised to Congress in the end were fraudulent? Big deal — LOTS of federal programs are funded with fraudulent hopes of payoffs. Congressmen know that, and …

This is getting too long. What I’m trying to say, gently, is that NASA has never had the option of operating by elementary engineering principles. It couldn’t “push the envelope” — it had to bust the envelope or die. Or be reduced to an agency which could only dream of pushing envelopes.

You don’t believe me, I’m sure. Ask your parents or grandparents. You had to be a adult living through that period to understand it.

And if it still seems too bizarre, think a bit about why NASA has refused to act as sensibly and intelligently as you think it should during the last 10 years or so. Was it just some strange moral flaws in Mike Grifin, Sean O’Keefe, and Dan Goldin that kept them from deciding that NASA should concentrate on “pushing the envelope with the smallest possible vehicle … with the lowest possible technology”?