The thread for space cadets!

[Thlayli]

Well when the European Council, or the Council of the European Union, or the Council of Europe, (which are all hilariously separate institutions) get their collective heads out of their collective posteriors and do anything remotely notable with regard to space, I will come, hat in hand, and admit that you, Winner, are oh so right about the ability of a decentralized mess of institutions that nobody really likes or even understands, to accomplish more than the American government in space.

Except that day will never come.

Star censuses are cool and all, but they don't really affect our species, its development, or our expansion into space. [With the exception of detecting exoplanets.] That's kind of what I define as "mattering".

 

[Winner]

Well when the European Council, or the Council of the European Union, or the Council of Europe, (which are all hilariously separate institutions)

You have no idea what they actually do, do you?

get their collective heads out of their collective posteriors and do anything remotely notable with regard to space, I will come, hat in hand, and admit that you, Winner, are oh so right about the ability of a decentralized mess of institutions that nobody really likes or even understands,

I do. See, here in Europe some of us actually learn how our government works. Alien concept, I know!

to accomplish more than the American government in space.

Except that day will never come.

I bow before your supreme power of prophesy!

Star censuses are cool and all, but they don't really affect our species, its development, or our expansion into space. That's kind of what I define as "mattering".

Ah, so advancing humankind's understanding of space doesn't matter, I get it. Well, so I guess mentioning trifles such as the first close rendezvous with a comet and the first ever photo of a cometary core, the first lander on Titan, the first exoplanet found, ground-breaking Earth observations missions, x-ray telescopes, previous star-cataloguing missions (data of which are used by nearly all astronomers in the world), the most successful and reliable series of commercial rockets, building of 1/3 of ISS modules, etc. etc. etc., would be a waste of time.

Good, because I have a work to do.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Well when the European Council, or the Council of the European Union, or the Council of Europe, (which are all hilariously separate institutions) get their collective heads out of their collective posteriors and do anything remotely notable with regard to space, I will come, hat in hand, and admit that you, Winner, are oh so right about the ability of a decentralized mess of institutions that nobody really likes or even understands, to accomplish more than the American government in space.

Except that day will never come.

Star censuses are cool and all, but they don't really affect our species, its development, or our expansion into space. [With the exception of detecting exoplanets.] That's kind of what I define as "mattering".

Huh?

The Europeans have done a lot in space. They have contributed more than their share of tech and kit to the ISS and it's the Europeans who are providing the propulsion/service module for NASA's new Orion spacecraft. They currently own one of the most capable rockets in existence and service a huge chunk of the GEO launch market all by themselves.

On top of that, if you want to lecture about beaurocratic messes - you need only look at NASA for a prime example. Our government has systematically screwed NASA over since Nixon killed Apollo back in the 70's. Meanwhile, the Europeans have managed to overcome international barriers to put together their own space program that doesn't suffer from the kind of nightmare, last-minute cancellations that NASA faces. When they fund a project, they fund it and they get it done. You can't say that about the US as much as it pains me to admit.

 

[Symphony D.]

Our government has systematically screwed NASA over since Nixon killed Apollo back in the 70's.

This isn't a particularly good reason to be upset with Nixon's handling of spaceflight. This is a good reason to be upset with Nixon's handling of spaceflight. NASA is equally to blame for contracting The Stupid in the aftermath and pursuing the Space Shuttle though.

 

[Thlayli]

You have no idea what they actually do, do you? :lol

Oh, I know what they do. Nothing.

I do. See, here in Europe some of us actually learn how our government works. Alien concept, I know!

So you learned that it's an ad hoc combination of powerless institutions with no ability to effect institutional change on national governments! Good.

I bow before your supreme power of prophesy!

Your concession is appreciated.

Ah, so advancing humankind's understanding of space doesn't matter, I get it. Well, so I guess mentioning trifles such as the first close rendezvous with a comet and the first ever photo of a cometary core, the first lander on Titan, the first exoplanet found, ground-breaking Earth observations missions, x-ray telescopes, previous star-cataloguing missions (data of which are used by nearly all astronomers in the world), the most successful and reliable series of commercial rockets, building of 1/3 of ISS modules, etc. etc. etc., would be a waste of time.

Good, because I have a work to do.

Let me know when you do some manned exploration. That's what matters, as I said. Everything else is just scientific fluff that doesn't really affect our species.

 

[dutchfire]

Everything else is just scientific fluff that doesn't really affect our species.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Political and economic consideration, not an engineering challenge. The original Saturn V was thrown together in approximately a decade for roughly $46 billion, ignoring precursor work. The Soviet N1 had roughly similar capabilities and was put together in an equivalent amount of time. So was the Soviet Energia for Buran, which was only just shy of the Saturn V in LEO capabilities. It's not nearly as challenging as you think, it's a question of its priority for the people signing the checks. Given NASA's annual budget lately, and those of other space agencies, one can infer how high that priority is. (Hint: it isn't.)

That's a generous over-generalization if there was one. All three of the rockets you mentioned had serious political impetus behind them, the kind of impetus that doesn't exist any more. They were national priorities (though N-1 never actually worked but hey, what do I know right?) of the kind that might not ever happen again and certainly won't happen because Zubrin says they should. Nice how you ignored the reality of the one actual heavy-lift rocket under development though. I guess what you can't refute doesn't count.

If you're only making a few shots, sure. For anything with a long enough operational record, unit flights will dominate the total cost of the endeavor. Interestingly, there is also a sweet-spot to be hand in total number of units assembled versus individual cost, due to economies of scale. Even if a larger vehicle is more efficient per flight, several smaller vehicles may wind up being cheaper overall. That's just in theory though.

Economies of scale in rocketry aren't as much of a thing as you seem to think. And for the fifteenth time, Zubrin's plan, which is what we're talking about, specifically calls for a handful of heavy-lift rocket launches. You're beating down a strawman bud.

In actual practice, you're still wrong. Doing some rough math:

Falcon 9 Heavy cost: ~$100 million per launch
LEO payload: 53,000kg
Unit rate: $1886/kg

Delta IV Heavy cost: ~$435 million per launch
LEO payload: 27,569kg
Unit rate: $15778/kg

Space Shuttle cost: ~$762 million per launch
LEO payload: 24,400kg
Unit rate: $31229/kg

Saturn V cost: ~$1.28 billion per launch
LEO payload: 120,000kg
Unit rate: $10666/kg

Apples and oranges.
Also:
Guess how much the actual payloads cost.

It's cheaper to break it up into smaller, more economical launch vehicles, and Falcon 9 outperforms Saturn V by over a factor of 5 on launch economy. Your argument only holds if there is a particular item that requires well more than the 53,000kg launch limit, of which just about the only thing that would qualify is a fission reactor for an electric power source. Given Zubrin's intense distaste for VASIMR, I doubt there's anything in his proposal that does in fact require full launch weight per throw. If there was, as the first point demonstrates, putting together a new launch vehicle would not be that hard—if the financial backing and political will existed in the first place, which it would have to for this to even be an issue.

My argument? You're talking about points I didn't make while ignoring points I did. Try actually reading my post next time I mean at this point it's clear you haven't, you're just rushing to spam out numbers and points.

This is more valid, but it's not like you're just going to seal some docking clamps on some modules and flit off to Mars.

And you lectured me about not knowing what I'm talking about? And how are you planning to assemble things in orbit without some kind of docking interface? How much weight and plumbing complexity is that going to add to the system? Oh but it's just a few tons. Oh wait, according to you you don't need all that and I'm just making stuff up.

The behavior of a ship under thrust (admittedly depending upon the scale of thrust) is going to necessitate more rigorous construction than that.

The components are not going to face more thrust under any reasonable engine assumptions during TMI than they saw during launch so this point is moot. Besides, you know, everytime the docked Apollo CSM/LM went off to the moon they totally fell apart.

These issues have already been well studied in modular assembly of modern ships and other large vehicles. That's not to say those techniques will translate 1:1 to orbit, but more or less everyone is familiar with the need for some orbital assembly being required.

What's your point? I didn't say it couldn't be done, but you would have actually have had to try to understand the points I actually made about complexity and weight.

In Zubrin's case, Mars Direct can avoid this by being broken down into smaller, more mission-specific modules which can still fulfill the majority of their time-critical functions (e.g., fuel production) while having more esoteric functions enabled by on-site construction by the astronauts. The specifics of how to do that are beyond this conversation, but it's not hard to see how it could be done.

How many times do I have to say I was commenting on what he actually said was his plan. You're attacking the same strawman. He has very well developed plans, it's not like he just has a series of powerpoint slides I'm nitpicking for lulz.

Plans can be modified and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how.

Says random guy on the internet. They do let anybody do it after all.

Zubrin was writing what was basically a best-case playbook, not an infinitely flexible field manual. A little imagination goes a pretty long way in adapting it.

It's more than a 'best-case playbook', it's his actual plan that he developed with NASA. I addressed that while you've gone off and tried to defend points Zubrin didn't make by attacking points I didn't make while ignoring the ones I did.

And someone who builds racing boats is an expert on nuclear subs, eh?

Says random guy on the internet. Though I have a sneaking suspicion you could tell me exactly how boomers are built too.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

This isn't a particularly good reason to be upset with Nixon's handling of spaceflight. This is a good reason to be upset with Nixon's handling of spaceflight. NASA is equally to blame for contracting The Stupid in the aftermath and pursuing the Space Shuttle though.

Miss the point much? I'd like to know that I'm debating someone who's actually trying to understand me.

Let me know when you do some manned exploration. That's what matters, as I said. Everything else is just scientific fluff that doesn't really affect our species.

You mean like the Orion service/propulsion module?

 

[Borachio]

Everything else is just scientific fluff that doesn't really affect our species.

This is a very interesting idea, I must say. That only things that directly affect the human species are worth pursuing?

But, you see, knowledge being what it is - imperfect at the very best - how does anyone know what bits of knowledge are going to have which effects in the future?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

This is a very interesting idea, I must say. That only things that directly affect the human species are worth pursuing?

But, you see, knowledge being what it is - imperfect at the very best - how does anyone know what bits of knowledge are going to have which effects in the future?

Well duh, anything the Europeans learn doesn't count because reasons and also also the Falcon 9 is like cheap man!
_________________

Time to eat and have a few drinks. I'm looking forward to replying tomorrow morning to any subsequent posts before I head off to thermal testing in the vacuum chamber.

 

[Winner]

Let me know when you do some manned exploration. That's what matters, as I said. Everything else is just scientific fluff that doesn't really affect our species.

You mean like sending people to the ISS in other people's space ships, like America does?

Well duh, anything the Europeans learn doesn't count because reasons and also also the Falcon 9 is like cheap man!
_________________

Time to eat and have a few drinks. I'm looking forward to replying tomorrow morning to any subsequent posts before I head off to thermal testing in the vacuum chamber.

Enjoy This thread is sometimes amusing as hell

 

[Symphony D.]

That's a generous over-generalization if there was one. All three of the rockets you mentioned had serious political impetus behind them, the kind of impetus that doesn't exist any more. They were national priorities (though N-1 never actually worked but hey, what do I know right?) of the kind that might not ever happen again and certainly won't happen because Zubrin says they should. Nice how you ignored the reality of the one actual heavy-lift rocket under development though. I guess what you can't refute doesn't count.

One of your points was that developing a heavy lift vehicle was difficult. It is not. You just confirmed that.

Economies of scale in rocketry aren't as much of a thing as you seem to think. And for the fifteenth time, Zubrin's plan, which is what we're talking about, specifically calls for a handful of heavy-lift rocket launches. You're beating down a strawman bud.

You're right, economies of scale are totally not a thing in space.

"When we first started [the EELV program], back in the 1990s, we thought we were going to have a very robust US launch program," Shelton said. "We were going to have all of these satellites going up for commercial broadband capability, these commercial cell phones. You know, all kinds of designs.

"Those didn’t come to fruition, but Boeing and Lockheed Martin ... both bought big quantities of piece parts—engines, booster components, all of those kinds of things. ... As we came into buys of blocks of boosters, we [USAF] got good deals, because they had bought economic-order quantities of these components."

For years, said Shelton, "we’ve been living off that," but the pool of relatively cheap components is drying up. "So now, we are getting into the real world of small numbers, manufacturers that have gone out of business, in some cases obsolescent technology."

Oh wait, no, you're wrong again. Also, Zubrin's plan is absolutely rigid and cannot be altered in any way. To even think of altering it is madness and heresy that only the most sick and demented mind can possibly contemplate. Yep.

Apples and oranges.

Point you can't refute? Ignore it.

Guess how much the actual payloads cost.

Less than the architecture.

My argument?

Ahem:

It adds drastically to the complexity, mass and cost of the overall system --> which defeats the entire purpose of Mars Direct as envisioned by Zubrin.

Your argument is: "Zubrin only mentioned heavy launch vehicles, therefore only heavy launch vehicles could possibly be used, heavy launch vehicles are impossible to acquire, and going to smaller launch vehicles than the ones envisioned will make the whole endeavor impossible, or ridiculously expensive!"

You've been wrong on every single point.

And you lectured me about not knowing what I'm talking about? And how are you planning to assemble things in orbit without some kind of docking interface? How much weight and plumbing complexity is that going to add to the system? Oh but it's just a few tons. Oh wait, according to you you don't need all that and I'm just making stuff up.

Gee I dunno how could you assemble a complex object without multi-ton docking assembles I don't

Oh. Oh...

The components are not going to face more thrust under any reasonable engine assumptions during TMI than they saw during launch so this point is moot. Besides, you know, everytime the docked Apollo CSM/LM went off to the moon they totally fell apart.

Apollo CSM/LM totally did hella mechanically stressful maneuvers like aerobreaking and components incorporating simulated gravity environments and such, yeah.

What's your point? I didn't say it couldn't be done, but you would have actually have had to try to understand the points I actually made about complexity and weight.

Yes, you did say it couldn't be done; you've repeatedly inferred his plan is stupid because he recommended a particular pathway into boosting stuff into orbit and you repeatedly refuse to counsel the notion that acquiring a heavy lift vehicle isn't hard or that it could be done through smaller launch vehicles, something you've spent this entire bloody post doing.

How many times do I have to say I was commenting on what he actually said was his plan. You're attacking the same strawman. He has very well developed plans, it's not like he just has a series of powerpoint slides I'm nitpicking for lulz.

As I already said, your objection boils down to "But he said X, and there is no possible way under heaven that it could be anything but X, because he said X!" Which is not reasonable by any definition of the word. So if I'm strawmanning, you're being exceptionally pedantic and inflexible.

It's more than a 'best-case playbook', it's his actual plan that he developed with NASA. I addressed that while you've gone off and tried to defend points Zubrin didn't make by attacking points I didn't make while ignoring the ones I did.

Let's go back to what you said, once again, since you can't seem to remember:

You could divide up some of it, for sure. Maybe you could even divide up all of it (though he never mentions this) to fit on smaller rockets. But then your costs sky-rocket (no pun intended) for a whole host of reasons. But he never even mentions is because we have the 'equivalent' of multiple Saturn V launches at our disposal. It's just nonsense, though I'm not sure I'm writing clearly enough to get the gist of the problem across

CUTTING UP PAYLOADS IS TOTALLY NONSENSE GUYS HE DIDN'T EVEN MENTION IT AND IT'S NOT POSSIBLE IT WILL BE SO EXPENSIVE

Yeah, you're right, I haven't addressed your points at all. You win, hobbsyoyo, it is absolutely impossible to parcel up Mars Direct onto several smaller launch vehicles because Robert Zubrin called for heavy launch vehicles, and therefore the whole thing is a ridiculous sham. You're absolutely right. You are Aerospace and Logic King and I am just a ridiculous troll. Nailed it in one.

Says random guy on the internet. Though I have a sneaking suspicion you could tell me exactly how boomers are built too.

Please tell us some more about how making rubber-band driven balsa wood planes (in your spare time) makes you an expert on the B-52. I personally love a good appeal to authority. Perhaps a real rocket scientist who plays Kerbal Space Program can enlighten us some more on this subject.

 

[Crezth]

I'm eating crow for this, but just having an aerospace education doesn't really make one a rocket scientist. Much less an expert on all things space.

 

[bhsup]

Yet I'll probably take Hobbs' word in the matter of random guy who hasn't said what their credentials are. I mean, hey, if he's a captured German U2 scientist who was brought to America after WW2... yeah sure, okay, let's talk.

 

[Symphony D.]

oh wow acronymagent you caught me okay lets trot out credentials

i mean i did observational astronomy as part of a undergrad astro program and worked in a high energy laser lab so obviously I am just as qualified to talk about heavy lift boosters as some guy who fiddles with cold gas jets because we are both totally qualified and knowledgeable experts in our field

your appeal to authority to a guy who, by the standards of his field, is a know-nothing dime-a-dozen cheap replacement cog barely out of diapers is not both sad and kind of funny

carry on

 

[Joecoolyo]

oh wow acronymagent you caught me okay lets trot out credentials

i mean i did observational astronomy as part of a undergrad astro program and worked in a high energy laser lab so obviously I am just as qualified to talk about heavy lift boosters as some guy who fiddles with cold gas jets because we are both totally qualified and knowledgeable experts in our field

your appeal to authority to a guy who, by the standards of his field, is a know-nothing dime-a-dozen cheap replacement cog barely out of diapers is not both sad and kind of funny

carry on

Sure made a case for yourself there, buddy.

 

[bhsup]

carry on

Will do. You're too edgy for me anyway.

 

[Symphony D.]

Keep calling an undergrad engineer a rocket scientist and acting like he's the second coming of Werner von Braun then, bro. He will never lead you astray, because you're too busy doing it yourself.

Sure made a case for yourself there, buddy.

Yeah, keeping the conservation at a level that's intelligible for my audience is hard sometimes, but I try.

 

[Crezth]

Sure made a case for yourself there, buddy.

Well, who started the whole appeal to authority crap anyway?

I mean, other than me on page 1.

 

[bhsup]

I wasn't really trying to "appeal to authority" as much as I was standing by a friend because someone appeared out of the blue and started immediately acting like an ass munch for no good reason. But hey, I'm sorry for the whole thing. I'll just return to lurking this thread.