Space flight WI: Smaller, faster, cheaper

RanulfC said:
Apollo, like WWII basing, was driven by specific needs and goals which wasn't how it started. Similarly the DoD and NRO requirements were quite focused and goal oriented but with a longer outlook. On the other hand the DoD, (specifically the Air Force) where the ones who "drove" MOL and Blue Gemini in an effort to justify manned space operations and pretty much proved conclusively that there wasn't any ACTUAL reason for manned operations instead :)

NASA efforts on the other hand started from the premise that man-in-space WAS at least part of the goal in the first place which brings it's own problems to the argument.

In OTL case this lead to the whole "robots-versus-humans" debate and the idea that you did either or rather than a mix of both. "Admitting" that putting people into space is a reason unto itself get the people who want science and exploration as a goal in itself riled up because the "logical" outcome (for either actually) is to use those assets for EVERYTHING as you're going to 'be-there' anyway.

"Robots are cheaper"
"People are more flexible"
"People are more expensive"
"People don't relate to Robots"
Yadda, yadda... The whole song and dance :)

Key take away is what you can actually "justify" in the end. Pretty much it boils down to access in an economic and regular fashion and that is itself driven by a number of factors with variable assumptions behind them. And even then your going to have needs that spike both price and payload capability and the whole system has to be able to cover that as well.

So far you end up with what we actually have in small, medium and large payload launch vehicles but very different in their usage and operations. At the same time the need to keep costs down mean they have to be flown very regularly (or only when absolutely necessary which means some capacity has to be carried by the rest of the system most of the time) and a whole lot of standardization to bring component costs down as far as possible. Then you attack operations (and overhead) costs and optimize flight rates.

Part of this (and a very hard part I might add) is needing the "customers" to standardize and adjust to the available capacity as well. Modular components and payload standardization lends itself to mass production but not so much as being flexible with customer needs,

All payloads can't be broken down into exact pieces and not all missions can be fulfilled with "standard" parts. (High rate, low capacity launch systems can be shown to be the most cost effective and efficient means of putting mass into orbit. There as some definite issues with breaking people down into individual 20lb chunks in order to utilize said system however. On the other hand getting a probe with camera onto the surface of Venus and not being able to remove the lens cover can be really disappointing :) )

While this is pretty clear to us now, back in the day its wasn't and therefor finding a way to have someone think of alternative when it wasn't even clear what was needed in the first place is tough. And on the gripping hand of course is the fact that now that we DO know the planning and inertia already in place make changing directions difficult at best.
You're right, there's a philosophical disagreement that maybe can never be settled. What I'm seeing is the same debate as "bombers versus missiles". There are things that are done well (better?) unmanned, & things that are done well (better?) manned. I guess I come down on the side of putting men in space when we can afford it & use the robots as pathfinders.

As for the history of Ranger, that's exactly the kind of program I'm hoping for. Yes, the non-transistor spacecraft would tend to fail more. So be it. I'd far rather have a few failures out of a lot of flights than a few flights. I don't mean to minimize the problems. Nor do I demand "breaking down" spacecraft as much as designing "specialist" types: give them a single task (or a few tasks) rather than ask they do so much. Or land a simple rover in several places.

IMO, when we finally get SPS, it makes manned planetary missions practical. Until then... (And that SPS makes terrestrial problems much less severe is so much the better.:))
 
Last edited:
You're right, there's a philosophical disagreement that maybe can never be settled. What I'm seeing is the same debate as "bombers versus missiles". There are things that are done well (better?) unmanned, & things that are done well (better?) manned. I guess I come down on the side of putting men in space when we can afford it & use the robots as pathfinders.

In actuality its EXACTLY like "bomber-vs-missile" and the "answer" is the same as well; There is in fact NO conflict and the entire question being framed in an "either/or" manner is a strawman to promote conflict in the first place :) Robots and humans should be used in conjunction rather than in place of each other. However the boat carrying the origins of both those arguments sailed a long time ago and the stances have pretty much fossilized at this point. :)

As for the history of Ranger, that's exactly the kind of program I'm hoping for. Yes, the non-transistor spacecraft would tend to fail more. So be it. I'd far rather have a few failures out of a lot of flights than a few flights. I don't mean to minimize the problems. Nor do I demand "breaking down" spacecraft as much as designing "specialist" types: give them a single task (or a few tasks) rather than ask they do so much. Or land a simple rover in several places.

Key of course is regular, inexpensive access for launching those specialist probes. Like a lot of the other early "justifications" for space operations, being able to schedule and launch a dozen Mariner/Ranger probes a year without breaking the budget changes a lot of paradigms of how things are done.

IMO, when we finally get SPS, it makes manned planetary missions practical. Until then... (And that SPS makes terrestrial problems much less severe is so much the better.:))

I suspect it'd be the reverse in that having a robust manned space infrastructure would enable things like SPS but my basic philosophical leaning is "we're going to be up there anyway, so why not..." :)

Randy
 
Ranulf said:
In actuality its EXACTLY like "bomber-vs-missile" and the "answer" is the same as well; There is in fact NO conflict and the entire question being framed in an "either/or" manner is a strawman to promote conflict in the first place :) Robots and humans should be used in conjunction rather than in place of each other. However the boat carrying the origins of both those arguments sailed a long time ago and the stances have pretty much fossilized at this point. :)
I think we're agreed, here.:)
Ranulf said:
Key of course is regular, inexpensive access for launching those specialist probes. Like a lot of the other early "justifications" for space operations, being able to schedule and launch a dozen Mariner/Ranger probes a year without breaking the budget changes a lot of paradigms of how things are done.
Here, too.:) The question, as OP, is how to get to that point.
Ranulf said:
I suspect it'd be the reverse in that having a robust manned space infrastructure would enable things like SPS but my basic philosophical leaning is "we're going to be up there anyway, so why not..." :)
What I imagine is something like Skylab/ISS on a somewhat larger scale, plus (maybe) a Luna research station, plus asteroid capture, rather than "stunt" missions to Luna &/or Mars. This IMO provides the lifter capacity & experience in ZG to build SPS, which are then turned to powering Earth (to help justify more ops in space) & to manned exploration (somewhat as a byproduct).

As for your "infrastructure on the ground", I was thinking less of the buildings or facilities than the overmanning of Mission Control...
 
The question, as OP, is how to get to that point.

The big sticking point is the attitude of "cost-is-no-object" and political pressure applied with the space race from Sputnik on. Avoiding that "could" get a more sustainable overall build up in launch capacity. But in essence your looking at ex-missile launch vehicles being predominate (because technically they cost less than straight civilian developed new launch vehicles) and those are specifically developed without considering cost per round. Once they move from military necessity to civilian economics (Thor-Delta is a prime example here) your costs can start to come down somewhat but you need a high flight rate to get per-unit costs down.

As payloads get bigger over time, (hard to stop this trend, especially with commercial satellites trending bigger let alone military ones, and this doesn't reverse till the latest micro-electronics revolution in the late 90s/early 2000s) you need to modify the LV to carry the new payloads which adds development and modifications costs to the mix. So your LV needs to be flexible enough to take such developments and modifications in stride.

Commercially this was achieved pretty much with the Delta-II and Atlas-3 vehicles but the cost once you add in fixed costs was and is still pretty high.

The idea has been around that reusability will lower both fixed and launch costs per vehicle. The idea is that a greater flight rate effects the former while reuse of the vehicle takes care of the latter. The thing is for lower flight rates such as we've historically seen, expendables actually make more economic sense up to a point. So building up from the original expendable military missiles to a reusable launch vehicle was pretty much a non-starter.

Add in that in the real world the Shuttle had one thing right in that to make economic sense (due to the need for a high fight rate) you're going to have to pretty much capture most if not all of the projected launch market it turns out the original idea has some flaws that no one foresaw. There's a sweet spot of course as long as you're careful and don't get greedy, human nature however... :)

Part if the reason I harp on Saturn-1 is because it WAS designed and built to be a work-horse medium-heavy to heavy payload lifter from the start. One of the main "reason's" it gets panned is supposed economics in that it's compared to the Titan-III with a "launch cost" of 9 million while the Saturn cost around 18 million per launch. While it LOOKS to be "half-the-cost" it's really apples and oranges and leaves a lot out of the discussion. Saturn-1 lifted about 20,000lbs, Saturn-1B over 40,000 while Titan-III started at a little over 7,000lbs and only matched the upper limit with the very later versions. (And both vehicles were built using "assembly lines" which kept the costs down but due the low flight rates not as low as they could have been)

The tanks and engines of the Saturn-1 were well proven and all the infrastructure was already paid for on the first stage, The second stage was more expensive but "paid" it's way with a higher efficiency and (if you're thinking that far ahead) with a possibly usable volume that can be converted to use "on-orbit" easier and with more usable volume than Titan. And as I've mentioned before Saturn at least had some work done on possible recovery and reuse where as Titan wasn't EVER going to be usable in such a way.

Saturn would put up a nice MORL lab, (not to be confused with the MORL lab which in all honesty IS confusing considering how many times that acronym pops up in regards to just about EVERY manned space lab proposal out there :) but this it the one I mean: http://www.astronautix.com/craft/morl.htm) which can be modular-ized into an eventually larger station. Along with the Saturn Lunar Adapter Space Station series (http://nassp.sourceforge.net/wiki/Future_Expansion#SLA_Workshop) and continued with various associated modules such as these (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4011/p135.htm) combined with a Logistics Ferry Apollo (http://www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com/blog/?p=2467, http://www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com/blog/?p=2452, http://www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com/blog/?p=2448) and Apollo X as a space-tug and secondary logistic vehicle (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4011/p36.htm) you can argue for a pretty robust Earth Orbital infrastructure as long as there is continued incentive for funding the program and missions.

Finding and straddling the fine line to doing so is the challenge, as too much focus (and funding and expansion, etc) gets you OTL Apollo and not enough means most of this stuff is starved to death.

What I imagine is something like Skylab/ISS on a somewhat larger scale, plus (maybe) a Luna research station, plus asteroid capture, rather than "stunt" missions to Luna &/or Mars. This IMO provides the lifter capacity & experience in ZG to build SPS, which are then turned to powering Earth (to help justify more ops in space) & to manned exploration (somewhat as a byproduct).

It was always "assumed" that the first infrastructure we'd build would be a space station, it was even what most of NASA Langley was working on initially while MSFC worked on the rockets to build and support it. Everything got thrown under the bus for the Moon-in-under-a-decade goal.
(Interesting reading, "The Space Revolution" Chapter 9, "Skipping the Next Logical Step" http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4308/ch9.htm, on what was being planned and worked on even when everyone knew it wasn't going to happen)

The problem is making everything pay for itself or finding justification to continue expensive and expansive manned missions despite the cost. SPS was supposed to be a way of doing so but in and of itself required a huge outlay in funding (specifically government funding because the commercial case hasn't ever been made) to build up the initial infrastructure.

Slow and steady might allow for a more robust infrastructure to be built up but if you're surface-to-LEO costs are low enough AND you already have some infrastructure in place the initial costs come within range of commercial investment.

As for your "infrastructure on the ground", I was thinking less of the buildings or facilities than the overmanning of Mission Control...

The "overmanning" of Mission Control and most other support facilities and systems were put into place to cover short-falls in the ability to put more instrumentation and monitoring on-board the spacecraft :) It's a truism that when "failure is not an option" success can get very expensive and that's pretty much what happened.

Saturn and Apollo were initially to be pretty bare bones affairs with Saturn launching from an old Titan test pad and "mission control" being an even older Atlas launch control facility while Saturn itself was stacked and prepped on it's launch pad. Mercury showed that the existing mini-trac facilities around the world weren't adequate to handle higher traffic or support any expanded program but in most cases a serious upgrading would probably have covered most of the shortfalls.

Putting more work onto the astronauts (as would be the case in any EOR or Orbital Assembly operation) would rapidly show the shortcomings of then current space suit design and the assumptions on EVA which would probably have enhanced space suit development, which is a good thing. And having people living and working on-orbit would have a lot of knock-ons in different directions than we ended up with. (Sure it's more expensive to have a space-tug go out and get a malfunctioning satellite and repair or bring it in for same, but it might be marginally less than a new satellite and launch. Even more so having the capability available means that there is a much higher chance the satellite designer/builder/buyer takes such capability into consideration and designing the satellite with that in mind rather than making it hugely redundant and expensive)

Randy
 
RanulfC said:
The big sticking point is the attitude of "cost-is-no-object" and political pressure applied with the space race from Sputnik on. Avoiding that "could" get a more sustainable overall build up in launch capacity.
Given the political environment & the "beat the SU" goal, that's a pretty big "could".;) I'm not seeing it being too likely.
RanulfC said:
But in essence your looking at ex-missile launch vehicles being predominate (because technically they cost less than straight civilian developed new launch vehicles) and those are specifically developed without considering cost per round. Once they move from military necessity to civilian economics (Thor-Delta is a prime example here) your costs can start to come down somewhat but you need a high flight rate to get per-unit costs down.

As payloads get bigger over time, (hard to stop this trend, especially with commercial satellites trending bigger let alone military ones, and this doesn't reverse till the latest micro-electronics revolution in the late 90s/early 2000s) you need to modify the LV to carry the new payloads which adds development and modifications costs to the mix. So your LV needs to be flexible enough to take such developments and modifications in stride.

Commercially this was achieved pretty much with the Delta-II and Atlas-3 vehicles but the cost once you add in fixed costs was and is still pretty high.

The idea has been around that reusability will lower both fixed and launch costs per vehicle. The idea is that a greater flight rate effects the former while reuse of the vehicle takes care of the latter. The thing is for lower flight rates such as we've historically seen, expendables actually make more economic sense up to a point. So building up from the original expendable military missiles to a reusable launch vehicle was pretty much a non-starter.

Add in that in the real world the Shuttle had one thing right in that to make economic sense (due to the need for a high fight rate) you're going to have to pretty much capture most if not all of the projected launch market it turns out the original idea has some flaws that no one foresaw. There's a sweet spot of course as long as you're careful and don't get greedy, human nature however... :)

Part if the reason I harp on Saturn-1 is because it WAS designed and built to be a work-horse medium-heavy to heavy payload lifter from the start. One of the main "reason's" it gets panned is supposed economics in that it's compared to the Titan-III with a "launch cost" of 9 million while the Saturn cost around 18 million per launch. While it LOOKS to be "half-the-cost" it's really apples and oranges and leaves a lot out of the discussion. Saturn-1 lifted about 20,000lbs, Saturn-1B over 40,000 while Titan-III started at a little over 7,000lbs and only matched the upper limit with the very later versions. (And both vehicles were built using "assembly lines" which kept the costs down but due the low flight rates not as low as they could have been)

The tanks and engines of the Saturn-1 were well proven and all the infrastructure was already paid for on the first stage, The second stage was more expensive but "paid" it's way with a higher efficiency and (if you're thinking that far ahead) with a possibly usable volume that can be converted to use "on-orbit" easier and with more usable volume than Titan. And as I've mentioned before Saturn at least had some work done on possible recovery and reuse where as Titan wasn't EVER going to be usable in such a way.
I see your point on Saturn I v Titan. As for the rest, I'm frankly in over my head...:eek:
RanulfC said:
Saturn would put up a nice MORL lab, (not to be confused with the MORL lab which in all honesty IS confusing considering how many times that acronym pops up in regards to just about EVERY manned space lab proposal out there :) but this it the one I mean: http://www.astronautix.com/craft/morl.htm) which can be modular-ized into an eventually larger station. Along with the Saturn Lunar Adapter Space Station series (http://nassp.sourceforge.net/wiki/Future_Expansion#SLA_Workshop) and continued with various associated modules such as these (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4011/p135.htm) combined with a Logistics Ferry Apollo (http://www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com/blog/?p=2467, http://www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com/blog/?p=2452, http://www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com/blog/?p=2448) and Apollo X as a space-tug and secondary logistic vehicle (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4011/p36.htm) you can argue for a pretty robust Earth Orbital infrastructure as long as there is continued incentive for funding the program and missions.

Finding and straddling the fine line to doing so is the challenge, as too much focus (and funding and expansion, etc) gets you OTL Apollo and not enough means most of this stuff is starved to death.
Yeah. I make no claims to know how to find a better balance. My grasp of politics is worse than my grasp of differential calculus.:p
RanulfC said:
It was always "assumed" that the first infrastructure we'd build would be a space station, it was even what most of NASA Langley was working on initially while MSFC worked on the rockets to build and support it. Everything got thrown under the bus for the Moon-in-under-a-decade goal.
(Interesting reading, "The Space Revolution" Chapter 9, "Skipping the Next Logical Step" http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4308/ch9.htm, on what was being planned and worked on even when everyone knew it wasn't going to happen)

The problem is making everything pay for itself or finding justification to continue expensive and expansive manned missions despite the cost. SPS was supposed to be a way of doing so but in and of itself required a huge outlay in funding (specifically government funding because the commercial case hasn't ever been made) to build up the initial infrastructure.

Slow and steady might allow for a more robust infrastructure to be built up but if you're surface-to-LEO costs are low enough AND you already have some infrastructure in place the initial costs come within range of commercial investment.
That sounds eminently sensible. So how hard would it be to get a power utility on board with building an SPS, in exchange for repaying USG's investment out of the revenue?
RanulfC said:
The "overmanning" of Mission Control and most other support facilities and systems were put into place to cover short-falls in the ability to put more instrumentation and monitoring on-board the spacecraft :) It's a truism that when "failure is not an option" success can get very expensive and that's pretty much what happened.

Saturn and Apollo were initially to be pretty bare bones affairs with Saturn launching from an old Titan test pad and "mission control" being an even older Atlas launch control facility while Saturn itself was stacked and prepped on it's launch pad. Mercury showed that the existing mini-trac facilities around the world weren't adequate to handle higher traffic or support any expanded program but in most cases a serious upgrading would probably have covered most of the shortfalls.

Putting more work onto the astronauts (as would be the case in any EOR or Orbital Assembly operation) would rapidly show the shortcomings of then current space suit design and the assumptions on EVA which would probably have enhanced space suit development, which is a good thing. And having people living and working on-orbit would have a lot of knock-ons in different directions than we ended up with. (Sure it's more expensive to have a space-tug go out and get a malfunctioning satellite and repair or bring it in for same, but it might be marginally less than a new satellite and launch. Even more so having the capability available means that there is a much higher chance the satellite designer/builder/buyer takes such capability into consideration and designing the satellite with that in mind rather than making it hugely redundant and expensive)
Yeah, we're back to up-front cost against the goal, aren't we? Better EVA suits & orbital tubs implies longer in-orbit stay times, which means the "first to the Moon" goal can't be met...& without that clear goal, how does any manned space program get funded by a Congress that can't see past the next election cycle?:rolleyes:

I'd be inclined to try & sell it as a jobs program, except I can't see Congress buying it.:rolleyes:

Until the '80s (& maybe not even then), I don't see private companies getting heavily into space development...unless they're getting really sweet deals from USG. SPS & asteroid capture are too speculative...:(
 
phx1138 wrote:
Given the political environment & the "beat the SU" goal, that's a pretty big "could". I'm not seeing it being too likely.

Hence the need to butterfly it away and as noted the only way I see that happening is no Sputnik-Panic, which necessitates a closer "race" from the start. Doable but you have to find a way to make it politically and publicly acceptable to have been even a tiny bit higher priority than it was OTL. There was a spike of public/government interest following the initial Collier's series and again when Disney did their features but nothing really solid to build on. Again I'd suggest a POD where something happens to Ike early on and Nixon is convinced of the need to stay at least on par with the Soviets rather than surpass them.

But you need to also keep costs down which leans more towards a seriously civilian program rather than military or government run program.

I see your point on Saturn I v Titan. As for the rest, I'm frankly in over my head...

Easy to do even for "true" Space Cadet :) We've all got our pet projects that could have done everything, and plenty of reasons to show why everyone else's was wrong :) I wasn't saying that IanW's concept was flat out wrong, just that it needed to address the situation at hand from the start. (And it's not like I've put my own ideas out there anywhere but in comments. Truth is I have issues with finding plausible PODs to hang a timeline on...)

Yeah. I make no claims to know how to find a better balance. My grasp of politics is worse than my grasp of differential calculus.

Case in point :) PODs "after-Apollo" avoid most of the mess as everything is pretty much already in place. But then you have to actually DEAL with all the already existing 'stuff' that's in the mix. PODs before have to deal with all the politics and social issues that were up to the point of the POD and then still extrapolate knock-ons both political and social from there. (Good ones anyway IMO) And you're not alone in the issue with politics, after all Mathematics has a logical underpinning and has to make sense whereas politics (and OTL) doesn't seem to have to follow that particular set of rules :)

That sounds eminently sensible. So how hard would it be to get a power utility on board with building an SPS, in exchange for repaying USG's investment out of the revenue?

On a small scale it's probably doable by the mid-to-late 1970s if the price is right. Your solar cell efficiency is coming along and price is coming down enough to be possible. Getting to the point of actually generating revenue though is tough due to the overall efficiency of the system. The Oil Shocks probably won't be enough, a stronger anti-nuclear and more environmental bias might help but really it would probably be a bigger detriment as manned space flight has always been seen in the environmental movement as part of the problem rather than part of the answer.

SPS was never (that I know of) a reason in and of itself, but as a means to justify building the space infrastructure needed to build space colonies. O'Neil at-al wanted an economic activity to employ the folks in the colonies and on Earth and push the need for all those people in space, but really you never needed much more than the "construction shacks" for building SPS. Worse, in order to afford that you pretty much needed a low cost access system which actually reduced your incentive economically for long-term habitation by personnel.

Reduce the price enough and the "off-shore-oil" model predominates rather than the space colony model.

Yeah, we're back to up-front cost against the goal, aren't we? Better EVA suits & orbital tugs implies longer in-orbit stay times, which means the "first to the Moon" goal can't be met...& without that clear goal, how does any manned space program get funded by a Congress that can't see past the next election cycle?

We have plenty of activities that aren't so dependent on the whims of the politicians :) But it's the cost and more accurately the national (on Earth) infrastructure and funding possibilities (and of course the very much higher profile that was originally given the whole NASA mission) that has been a driver for the politics of the US space program. Much like the earlier TVA it allows both prestige and practical programs along with pork and waste to be directed to wherever the person with the right connections wants.

On the converse side such high profile makes it easier to target by those opposed to or looking for way to make political points, and lower priority, lower key activities are vulnerable as well to targeted opposition. On the other hand it's not as effective to target lower "value" programs. I don't think Proxmier and his fellows would have had so much press if NASA at the time wasn't such a high profile target.

I'd be inclined to try & sell it as a jobs program, except I can't see Congress buying it.

Oh Congress would buy it I'm sure, that's what they keep telling everyone it is NOW yet it is blinding clear they don't mean "jobs" anytime soon :)
NASA (and their contractors) was bleeding personnel before Apollo 11 even was launched and it has been declining ever since. Any expanded or increased space program means more money is needed but that doesn't translate into more jobs. "Jobs" is a good buzzword for Congress to use but it's not an actual metric they actually look for as a justification.

Until the '80s (& maybe not even then), I don't see private companies getting heavily into space development...unless they're getting really sweet deals from USG. SPS & asteroid capture are too speculative...

Well...

See this is where something like the actual "smaller, faster, cheaper" CAN come into play.

I pointed out you really can't build a robust space infrastructure in 3 ton increments. You can however support one with that range of payload as long as your can keep costs to a minimum. "Fixed" costs are just that with little leeway to play with but some fixed costs can be "finagled" if you can spread them out over time. Hence the higher flight rate can in fact lower some of your operations costs by allowing you to get greater value from things like launch support services.

Now if you can lower you initial costs of building the LV and the costs of operations and support you go even further towards lowering the overall costs of getting to orbit. (Though It's highly complicated and only relatively clear how this works as SpaceX is finding out)

Pretty much everyone agrees that reusability helps though there is a lot of argument on "how" it does so and where the break even point is at. (And reusability "costs" more for upper stages in terms of cost, complexity, and payload) And what you eventually want to get to is "airplane-like" (which is really a misnomer and confusing as it tends to associate "affordable" LVs as aircraft rather than specifically a "cost-effective" transportation system and I blame sound-bytes and easy visualization because "airplane-like" brings forth images of the last time YOU flew on an airplane where as saying "train-like" or "shipping-like" brings up riding rails into the sky for the former and huge ships for the latter no matter what the actual economics is :) ) operations and costs. "How" you get there is variable.

As a suggestion let me toss one out there: (Second post down, "Non-Capital Intensive Launcher" http://yarchive.net/space/launchers/jet_first_stage.html)

In essence the first stage uses surplus, high hours fighter jet engines to assist a 3-barrel, Two-Stage hydrolox powered launch vehicle capable of putting 3 tons into LEO and fully reusable. Prices are correct and quoted from the manufacturers when the study was done (IIRC late 1980s early 1990s) and the author worked on the study cited for Boeing as a viable low-cost launch system with a high usage rate. The idea surfaced again when NASA Dryden "came up with" the concept again in 2013 noted here: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/8047472.pdf, and here http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ipp/centers/dfrc/technology/DRC-010-039-Ram-Booster.html) though without the reusable rocket stages. Your range and support cost would probably still dominate I'd think but maybe not if you could show enough reliability.

Randy
 
RanulfC said:
Hence the need to butterfly it away and as noted the only way I see that happening is no Sputnik-Panic, which necessitates a closer "race" from the start. Doable but you have to find a way to make it politically and publicly acceptable to have been even a tiny bit higher priority than it was OTL. There was a spike of public/government interest following the initial Collier's series and again when Disney did their features but nothing really solid to build on. Again I'd suggest a POD where something happens to Ike early on and Nixon is convinced of the need to stay at least on par with the Soviets rather than surpass them.

But you need to also keep costs down which leans more towards a seriously civilian program rather than military or government run program.
Eisenhower's heart attack could be more severe, putting Nixon in the White House... (Is that the right year?:eek:) IDK anything about Nixon's attitude to competition with the Sovs, or space in general, but he might take a more measured approach.​
RanulfC said:
Easy to do even for "true" Space Cadet :) We've all got our pet projects that could have done everything, and plenty of reasons to show why everyone else's was wrong :) I wasn't saying that IanW's concept was flat out wrong, just that it needed to address the situation at hand from the start. (And it's not like I've put my own ideas out there anywhere but in comments. Truth is I have issues with finding plausible PODs to hang a timeline on...)
I'm taking no sides.;) If there's a way it can be done...
RanulfC said:
Case in point :) PODs "after-Apollo" avoid most of the mess as everything is pretty much already in place. But then you have to actually DEAL with all the already existing 'stuff' that's in the mix. PODs before have to deal with all the politics and social issues that were up to the point of the POD and then still extrapolate knock-ons both political and social from there. (Good ones anyway IMO)
I've already gotten the sense getting what I'm after isn't possible with Apollo underway, & maybe not with Gemini or even Mercury: it's like turning a supertanker. That makes even (otherwise) credible PODs non-starters; they just can't change enough fast enough.​
RanulfC said:
you're not alone in the issue with politics, after all Mathematics has a logical underpinning and has to make sense whereas politics (and OTL) doesn't seem to have to follow that particular set of rules :)
There are rules?:p
RanulfC said:
On a small scale it's probably doable by the mid-to-late 1970s if the price is right. Your solar cell efficiency is coming along and price is coming down enough to be possible. Getting to the point of actually generating revenue though is tough due to the overall efficiency of the system. The Oil Shocks probably won't be enough, a stronger anti-nuclear and more environmental bias might help but really it would probably be a bigger detriment as manned space flight has always been seen in the environmental movement as part of the problem rather than part of the answer.
That appears mutual. It shouldn't: the greens want less pollution & harm to the planet; the "Space Cadets" (of whom I proudly claim membership:)) want Man off the planet in large numbers & manufacturing in space. The problem appears to be communication....​
RanulfC said:
SPS was never (that I know of) a reason in and of itself, but as a means to justify building the space infrastructure needed to build space colonies. O'Neil at-al wanted an economic activity to employ the folks in the colonies and on Earth and push the need for all those people in space, but really you never needed much more than the "construction shacks" for building SPS. Worse, in order to afford that you pretty much needed a low cost access system which actually reduced your incentive economically for long-term habitation by personnel.
I can't say if O'Neill meant it that way, but he & Pournelle (who I mainly rely on) both seem to presume that path. I'd agree, thteme need for manned spaceflight to build SPS isn't there; indeed, it could be done mainly with telefactors... (Aside: I've always preferred solar thermal to PV, for weight's sake; IMO, the system "working fluid" losses are small (& might encourage manned repair flights...:cool:)​
RanulfC said:
Reduce the price enough and the "off-shore-oil" model predominates rather than the space colony model.
If that can be done, & IMO it's possible to build lifters able to achieve the $/kg rate to do it, you've put in reach of Big Oil. Indeed, maybe in reach of Medium Oil,:p such as Husky--or, more probably, of a Japanese company looking to break the oil stranglehold. (IDK about elsewhere; Africa would be a real beneficiary of SPS, but I doubt any African country can afford it. Brazil or Argentina? Mexico?)
RanulfC said:
We have plenty of activities that aren't so dependent on the whims of the politicians:) But it's the cost and more accurately the national (on Earth) infrastructure and funding possibilities (and of course the very much higher profile that was originally given the whole NASA mission) that has been a driver for the politics of the US space program. Much like the earlier TVA it allows both prestige and practical programs along with pork and waste to be directed to wherever the person with the right connections wants.

On the converse side such high profile makes it easier to target by those opposed to or looking for way to make political points, and lower priority, lower key activities are vulnerable as well to targeted opposition. On the other hand it's not as effective to target lower "value" programs. I don't think Proxmier and his fellows would have had so much press if NASA at the time wasn't such a high profile target.
It's not only high-profile, tho I agree, that's part of it. It's lack of understanding. (Maybe it's the "built off-earth" getting in the way.) I get the sense your average Congresscritter can't see how spending money on space flight comes back. Putting $700 billion into banks was an easy sell; putting $700 billion into NASA & creating hundreds of thousands of high-pay, high-skill jobs (& generating billions in taxes from the spinoffs) isn't as clear, it seems.
RanulfC said:
Oh Congress would buy it I'm sure, that's what they keep telling everyone it is NOW yet it is blinding clear they don't mean "jobs" anytime soon :)
NASA (and their contractors) was bleeding personnel before Apollo 11 even was launched and it has been declining ever since. Any expanded or increased space program means more money is needed but that doesn't translate into more jobs. "Jobs" is a good buzzword for Congress to use but it's not an actual metric they actually look for as a justification.
It's more "jobs in my district", I'm sure.:rolleyes: And photo ops of ribbon cuttings, & things with the Critter's name on them...
RanulfC said:
this is where something like the actual "smaller, faster, cheaper" CAN come into play.

I pointed out you really can't build a robust space infrastructure in 3 ton increments. You can however support one with that range of payload as long as your can keep costs to a minimum. "Fixed" costs are just that with little leeway to play with but some fixed costs can be "finagled" if you can spread them out over time. Hence the higher flight rate can in fact lower some of your operations costs by allowing you to get greater value from things like launch support services.

Now if you can lower you initial costs of building the LV and the costs of operations and support you go even further towards lowering the overall costs of getting to orbit. (Though It's highly complicated and only relatively clear how this works as SpaceX is finding out)

Pretty much everyone agrees that reusability helps though there is a lot of argument on "how" it does so and where the break even point is at. (And reusability "costs" more for upper stages in terms of cost, complexity, and payload) And what you eventually want to get to is "airplane-like" (which is really a misnomer and confusing as it tends to associate "affordable" LVs as aircraft rather than specifically a "cost-effective" transportation system and I blame sound-bytes and easy visualization because "airplane-like" brings forth images of the last time YOU flew on an airplane where as saying "train-like" or "shipping-like" brings up riding rails into the sky for the former and huge ships for the latter no matter what the actual economics is :)) operations and costs. "How" you get there is variable.

As a suggestion let me toss one out there: (Second post down, "Non-Capital Intensive Launcher" http://yarchive.net/space/launchers/jet_first_stage.html)

In essence the first stage uses surplus, high hours fighter jet engines to assist a 3-barrel, Two-Stage hydrolox powered launch vehicle capable of putting 3 tons into LEO and fully reusable. Prices are correct and quoted from the manufacturers when the study was done (IIRC late 1980s early 1990s) and the author worked on the study cited for Boeing as a viable low-cost launch system with a high usage rate. The idea surfaced again when NASA Dryden "came up with" the concept again in 2013 noted here: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/8047472.pdf, and here http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ipp/centers/dfrc/technology/DRC-010-039-Ram-Booster.html) though without the reusable rocket stages. Your range and support cost would probably still dominate I'd think but maybe not if you could show enough reliability.
I'd say you mean "airline-like": regular & reasonably priced/costed. Concorde's ticket price is outrageous for Joe Average, but people with a need (or strong desire) will pay it. So, too, a "low-cost" reliable lifter, if it meant it paid back (with access) more than it was costing.

The "jet pack" idea sounds really interesting, if a bit nutty on its face. (I'd be concerned about an engine letting go; the more engines, the more chances of a catastrophic failure.:eek:)​

If we're going to get government out of the business, we need to get regulations allowing private companies to build & fly without insane requirements...:eek:

And I notice we've gotten far afield from where I started, wondering about cheaper & simpler science payloads... I can only imagine NASA taking advantage of the cheaper lifters to fly more planetary missions. (I'm not seeing the NGS doing it, somehow...:p Maybe a joint NGS-Virgin Galactic mission?:p)​
 

Eisenhower's heart attack could be more severe, putting Nixon in the White House... (Is that the right year?:eek:) IDK anything about Nixon's attitude to competition with the Sovs, or space in general, but he might take a more measured approach.​

Heart attack was in 1955 prior to his deciding to run for re-election in 1956. It would put Nixon in charge AND running for "election" on his own. The Vanguard decision was made in August of 1955 while Ike's heart attack was in September and his feeling about the Army project (and von Braun) were already in place by that time so it's likely Nixon would have had to play "catch-up" under the same pressure. Not sure it he'd have been more forthcoming with information over the Soviet capability or more in-tune with the actual "feelings" of the public at the time but it's hard to see him being as clueless as Eisenhower acted.

I could see Nixon being briefed on the Navy's issues with Vanguard and possibly putting von Braun and the Army's Explorer program on standby.

On the other hand, Vanguard TV3 was supposed to launch in September of 1957 but didn't due to delays, which meant Sputnik went up first. NRL was having serious issues with the whole Vanguard vehicle development program so it might be a bit to ASB to propose success but on the other hand success would have gone a long way toward easing the pressure.

Nixon at the time (again IIRC) was more willing to push confrontation or competition with the Soviets so it's possible he could have pushed a more competitive (but not so much as to be as expensive as OTL) Space Race with the USSR.

I've already gotten the sense getting what I'm after isn't possible with Apollo underway, & maybe not with Gemini or even Mercury: it's like turning a supertanker. That makes even (otherwise) credible PODs non-starters; they just can't change enough fast enough.​

Really by the time even Mercury flew it was very much a case of needing to catch up to remain credible. Kennedy felt pressured to do "something" to show the US could "beat" the Russians and everything pointed to the Moon as being the most logical target. Had Shepard beaten Gagarin into "space" it might have eased the pressure some but I have my doubts as everyone would quickly understand the difference between orbital and sub-orbital.

The other problem was Mercury was very much a "man-in-a-can" spacecraft where as while 'technically' Vostok was the same it didn't seem that way given the numerous "first" the Soviets were racking up with it and the limited amount Mercury could do. A more capable Mercury (and/or booster) would have helped, allowing for more of what Gemini was tasked to do being able to be done earlier.

(Given the original 5 engine Atlas as a booster I can easily see a much more robust Mercury. On the other hand using such in a notional TL I've been playing with allows the US to orbit an Atlas based "space station" around the mid to late 60s and THAT is going to end up being a disaster due to a general lack of knowledge and experience. It probably won't kill anyone but the learning curve would be steep at that point.)

That appears mutual. It shouldn't: the greens want less pollution & harm to the planet; the "Space Cadets" (of whom I proudly claim membership:)) want Man off the planet in large numbers & manufacturing in space. The problem appears to be communication....​

And then some, but in essence it's that one side feels that science and technology CAUSE most of our problems while the other feels they can SOLVE all our problems. Thing is both side have points but in general the trend can be more positive than negative. (S&T gave us nuclear power and all that entails but it also gave us more efficient solar and wind power generation capability for example. IMHO nuclear can be very "green" energy if treated carefully and designed right :) )

I can't say if O'Neill meant it that way, but he & Pournelle (who I mainly rely on) both seem to presume that path. I'd agree, thteme need for manned spaceflight to build SPS isn't there; indeed, it could be done mainly with telefactors... (Aside: I've always preferred solar thermal to PV, for weight's sake; IMO, the system "working fluid" losses are small (& might encourage manned repair flights...:cool:)​

You can do a lot of thing "in-space" that actually make economic sense IF you're already there in the first place :)


If that can be done, & IMO it's possible to build lifters able to achieve the $/kg rate to do it, you've put in reach of Big Oil. Indeed, maybe in reach of Medium Oil,:p such as Husky--or, more probably, of a Japanese company looking to break the oil stranglehold. (IDK about elsewhere; Africa would be a real beneficiary of SPS, but I doubt any African country can afford it. Brazil or Argentina? Mexico?)​


Put it into the range of Medium or Big Charity range and find a reason to give those regions/areas/nations a reliable power grid maybe :)

It's not only high-profile, tho I agree, that's part of it. It's lack of understanding. (Maybe it's the "built off-earth" getting in the way.) I get the sense your average Congresscritter can't see how spending money on space flight comes back. Putting $700 billion into banks was an easy sell; putting $700 billion into NASA & creating hundreds of thousands of high-pay, high-skill jobs (& generating billions in taxes from the spinoffs) isn't as clear, it seems.

They "see" it alright but in a very narrow way. My favorite example is the payload mass for SLS. Specifically, the "130 tons" was based on what the Utah Congressional delegation was told by "experts" (read Thiokol/ATK representatives) who assured them that any LV launching that amount of payload would REQUIRE Solid Rocket Motors built in Utah. The Congress folks noted this in the local papers and touted it as "protecting" Utah jobs even as the a fore mentioned company was laying off 90% of it's SRB work force and had (and still has) no plans to hire them back.

Congress is well aware that there won't be many flights of the SLS with NASA's budget but as long as it "looks" like they care, people will still vote for them.

I'd say you mean "airline-like": regular & reasonably priced/costed. Concorde's ticket price is outrageous for Joe Average, but people with a need (or strong desire) will pay it. So, too, a "low-cost" reliable lifter, if it meant it paid back (with access) more than it was costing.
Pretty much but far to many people get caught up in the "airplane" part of "airline-like" :)

The "jet pack" idea sounds really interesting, if a bit nutty on its face. (I'd be concerned about an engine letting go; the more engines, the more chances of a catastrophic failure.:eek:)​

It's done dozen of times a day all over the world with very few incidents :) Build in some protection to contain any failure (and it's not heavy or expensive to do) and any failure is simply and abort instead of a catastrophe. And even running full out (which they are designed to do in normal operation I might add) there is less chance of failure overall. But even so as I noted you still don't actually "save" as much as one would think over normal launch operations

If we're going to get government out of the business, we need to get regulations allowing private companies to build & fly without insane requirements...:eek:

We've actually got very little "regulation" and a lot of it (looking at ITAR here) is driven by some very specific concerns that are badly addressed by needless regulation and enforcement. Anybody can pretty much build and launch a "launch vehicle" but the entry costs for actual useful launch are pretty high. Most of the "failures" are due to lack of market with costly design and artificially supported competition thrown on top.

And I notice we've gotten far afield from where I started, wondering about cheaper & simpler science payloads... I can only imagine NASA taking advantage of the cheaper lifters to fly more planetary missions. (I'm not seeing the NGS doing it, somehow...:p Maybe a joint NGS-Virgin Galactic mission?:p)​

Well the whole situation IS pretty complex and effected by numerous factors which aren't easy to boil down to a simple solution :)

On the other hand "cheap" access would enable a lot of payloads that OTL never had a chance to fly. Both government and non-government.

NGS?

Randy
 
RanulfC said:
Heart attack was in 1955 prior to his deciding to run for re-election in 1956. It would put Nixon in charge AND running for "election" on his own. The Vanguard decision was made in August of 1955 while Ike's heart attack was in September and his feeling about the Army project (and von Braun) were already in place by that time so it's likely Nixon would have had to play "catch-up" under the same pressure. Not sure it he'd have been more forthcoming with information over the Soviet capability or more in-tune with the actual "feelings" of the public at the time but it's hard to see him being as clueless as Eisenhower acted.

I could see Nixon being briefed on the Navy's issues with Vanguard and possibly putting von Braun and the Army's Explorer program on standby.

On the other hand, Vanguard TV3 was supposed to launch in September of 1957 but didn't due to delays, which meant Sputnik went up first. NRL was having serious issues with the whole Vanguard vehicle development program so it might be a bit to ASB to propose success but on the other hand success would have gone a long way toward easing the pressure.

Nixon at the time (again IIRC) was more willing to push confrontation or competition with the Soviets so it's possible he could have pushed a more competitive (but not so much as to be as expensive as OTL) Space Race with the USSR.
Could you live with Eisenhower having the heart attack a touch sooner? (I hesitate to do that...)

Given we leave OTL alone until the heart attack, having Nixon take a less panicky approach could work, if only because he's also running for PotUS himself: "Give me an issue I can run on, not something that will create a panic." Then, he follows with a more aggressive, but more measured, response, in part based on an earlier Vanguard shot. (IIRC, it could have flown before Sputnik, but was held for reasons I don't recall; orders from Eisenhower, IIRC.)​
RanulfC said:
Really by the time even Mercury flew it was very much a case of needing to catch up to remain credible. Kennedy felt pressured to do "something" to show the US could "beat" the Russians and everything pointed to the Moon as being the most logical target. Had Shepard beaten Gagarin into "space" it might have eased the pressure some but I have my doubts as everyone would quickly understand the difference between orbital and sub-orbital.
That still works, tho: if Shepard gets there first, but the public is still seeing the U.S. as being beaten, it keeps Congress onboard while Nixon can say, "Don't panic, we're actually winning." (& nobody really believes it:p).​
RanulfC said:
The other problem was Mercury was very much a "man-in-a-can" spacecraft where as while 'technically' Vostok was the same it didn't seem that way given the numerous "first" the Soviets were racking up with it and the limited amount Mercury could do. A more capable Mercury (and/or booster) would have helped, allowing for more of what Gemini was tasked to do being able to be done earlier.

(Given the original 5 engine Atlas as a booster I can easily see a much more robust Mercury. On the other hand using such in a notional TL I've been playing with allows the US to orbit an Atlas based "space station" around the mid to late 60s and THAT is going to end up being a disaster due to a general lack of knowledge and experience. It probably won't kill anyone but the learning curve would be steep at that point.)
That works. If Big Mercury leads to Big Gemini & that leads to a two-man Lunar project (Bigger Gemini?:p), so much the better.:cool: Or if it leads to a sense of a need for EOR (or if EOR is forced by lack of lifter throw weight)...:cool:
RanulfC said:
And then some, but in essence it's that one side feels that science and technology CAUSE most of our problems while the other feels they can SOLVE all our problems. Thing is both side have points but in general the trend can be more positive than negative. (S&T gave us nuclear power and all that entails but it also gave us more efficient solar and wind power generation capability for example. IMHO nuclear can be very "green" energy if treated carefully and designed right :) )
Agreed, tho I'm not a fan of nuclear, myself. I can't help think the Greens generally hate technology, until (unless) it does what they want...:rolleyes: And while I tend to be the technophile, I'm not blind to the issues of resultant problems, either. It frustrates me dogma seems to get in the way of reason.:confused::mad:

However, that's getting OT & bordering on a rant you don't want to hear.:p
RanulfC said:
You can do a lot of thing "in-space" that actually make economic sense IF you're already there in the first place :)
Oh, I entirely agree.;) It's getting the basis for it that's hard. For GEO/L-points, there's a very, very big step between "mining camp" & "village" & a bigger one to "town". Once you get even to "village", it becomes sensible to do many more things on-site, but getting to that...:eek:
RanulfC said:
Put it into the range of Medium or Big Charity range and find a reason to give those regions/areas/nations a reliable power grid maybe:)
Now that's an approach I'd never have thought of.:cool: How much do NGOs spend on medicines & such, & how much global foreign aid goes into Africa? Would that buy even a single, low-powered "pilot" SPS? (I'm thinking even 20-50MW, let alone the 5GW I've seen mooted as standard, would go a long way in Africa.) That would help raise standards of living (& reduce pop growth), & reduce enviro damage, so we could rope in the Greens, too---maybe.​
Here's another thought: if we start with "pilot" SPS, can they be flown right out of Kenya?:cool: Would an African gov't be willing to back a project like this? (Alternatively, would Argentina or Chile or Brazil?)
RanulfC said:
They "see" it alright but in a very narrow way. My favorite example is the payload mass for SLS. Specifically, the "130 tons" was based on what the Utah Congressional delegation was told by "experts" (read Thiokol/ATK representatives) who assured them that any LV launching that amount of payload would REQUIRE Solid Rocket Motors built in Utah. The Congress folks noted this in the local papers and touted it as "protecting" Utah jobs even as the a fore mentioned company was laying off 90% of it's SRB work force and had (and still has) no plans to hire them back.

Congress is well aware that there won't be many flights of the SLS with NASA's budget but as long as it "looks" like they care, people will still vote for them.
:rolleyes: First thing, let's shoot all the lobbyists.:rolleyes: And a few Congresscritters.:rolleyes: The space lobby simply can't match the bribes. How do we enlist the rocket builders & aerospace companies? Can't they see more flights means more money?:confused::confused:
RanulfC said:
Pretty much but far to many people get caught up in the "airplane" part of "airline-like" :)
Yeah.:( When the news weenies can't even get it right a 2-seat fighter doesn't have 2 pilots...:rolleyes:
RanulfC said:
It's done dozen of times a day all over the world with very few incidents :) Build in some protection to contain any failure (and it's not heavy or expensive to do) and any failure is simply and abort instead of a catastrophe. And even running full out (which they are designed to do in normal operation I might add) there is less chance of failure overall. But even so as I noted you still don't actually "save" as much as one would think over normal launch operations
I sense you're telling me about airlines & CV ops, here.;) I draw a slight distinction. Whatever my reservations personally, if the engineers will sign off (tho maybe a different design needs to be used for man-rated lifters, which would trouble me only slightly), I'm happy. If it means there are "cars" & "trucks" for space ops...
RanulfC said:
We've actually got very little "regulation" and a lot of it (looking at ITAR here) is driven by some very specific concerns that are badly addressed by needless regulation and enforcement. Anybody can pretty much build and launch a "launch vehicle" but the entry costs for actual useful launch are pretty high. Most of the "failures" are due to lack of market with costly design and artificially supported competition thrown on top.
I agree, the ITAR is nuts. I meant more a "rulebook" to operate under, like what happened after the airmail shakeout in the '30s, or the safety regs after the Rockne crash: rules that say what you must do to keep passengers & ground crews safe, what you must not do ditto; as it stands now, it's more like, "Whatever the hell NASA says it is".:rolleyes:
RanulfC said:
Well the whole situation IS pretty complex and effected by numerous factors which aren't easy to boil down to a simple solution :)

On the other hand "cheap" access would enable a lot of payloads that OTL never had a chance to fly. Both government and non-government.
That's very true.:)
RanulfC said:
Sorry.:eek: National Geographic Society.​
 
In my view, the main problem with more space exploration is lack of political and economic motivation.

IOTL the Space Race was a big prestige contest between the US and USSR; after the Cold War space exploration has dropped precipitously. Today, the main motivator for space will likely be economic.

Thing is, it's a lot of money for very little gain. Pkmatrix summed it up best in his Revised History of the Future TL:

A few things.

Firstly, space travel is expensive. That never really stops, although it's gotten cheap enough that LEO travel and Cislunar travel are common. Mars, however, is significantly further away and, thus, requires more planning, more fuel, more infrastructure, and presents a bigger long-term investment. With the only country truly interested in space exploration being China, and China being notoriously slow, it takes time before anyone bothers putting an expedition together at all. While there are plenty of private corporations involved in space travel by 2100, few are at all interested in laying down the cash needed to establish a foothold on Mars. Look how long it's taking private interests to do so with the Moon: nobody wants to be first to invest on a venture they're not entirely sure will pay off. While there's interest in exploration and exploitation, there's no impetus for real colonization - the Developed World is comfortable, and the Developing World is too poor to do anything. The corporations ask, "Where's the profit in that?"

Thus, the slow speed of space development.

I love talking and thinking about space, and I hope reality moves faster than I've depicted. However, once you strip away the optimism and the pessimism and try to think rationally, based on what's happened and the present...well, I don't see things moving much more quickly than what I've predicted here. :/

I hope I'm proven wrong, though! :)
 
AYC said:
the main problem with more space exploration is lack of political and economic motivation.

IOTL the Space Race was a big prestige contest between the US and USSR; after the Cold War space exploration has dropped precipitously. Today, the main motivator for space will likely be economic.

Thing is, it's a lot of money for very little gain.
I'd disagree. It's a total lack of understanding of just how big a bonanza is out there. If we can get SPS built, the amount of energy we can tap just in an equatorial orbit is something over 80 times the total U.S. annual consumption.:eek::cool: (Start adding GEO/L-points, never mind Venus-, Mercury-, & solar-orbit powersats...:cool::cool::cool:) And the amount of mineral wealth exceeds annual U.S. production several times, too.:eek::cool:

Exploration has always been about money first & only later pure science. Don't think Henry the Navigator or Columbus were really interested in finding anything but a route to the Spice Islands without a toll charge on it.:rolleyes: Nor was Franklin solely (or even primarily) interested in Arctic fauna & flora...:rolleyes:
 

Driftless

Donor
At what economic & security point does having a "garbage removal" service become possible? Some entity to actively pursue the destruction/removal of space junk (yes, of course, this may be beyond current capabilities)

Technically, it's more than possible right now - use a XIPS-25 running Xenon, and you'll be able to match velocities with most of the space junk, and a net system has been tested.

The problem is I can only imagine the Swiss paying for space junk cleanup, and until you have the infrastructure of a furnace etc in space to turn it into useful construction material or fuel rods for Neumann Drives, your best option is to turn it inot very expensive fireworks.

Still very much theoretical engineering excercises...

Debris engine

Debris engine #2


Clean Space One
 
Top