RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 135,674
Posts: 5,212,667
Members: 24,201
Currently online: 550
Newest member: KieBH84


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Entertainment & Interests > Science and Technology

Science and Technology "Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known." - Carl Sagan.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old November 10 2012, 04:40 PM   #301
sojourner
Vice Admiral
 
sojourner's Avatar
 
Location: I'm at WKRP
Re: Envisioning the world of 2100

newtype_alpha wrote: View Post
Been in spaceflight for 30 years working on multiple systems, both spacecraft and launch vehicle across all the companies and very intimate with launch ops
Considering how shallow your objections are, I find this VERY hard to believe.
It's true. He works at KSC.
__________________
Baby, you and me were never meant to be, just maybe think of me once in a while...
sojourner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 10 2012, 09:30 PM   #302
publiusr
Commodore
 
Re: Envisioning the world of 2100

Yep, that's Jim alright--Payload processing. He and Scott Lowther over at www.up-ship.com had it out briefly:

http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthre...05#post1857505

Bye the Bye, what caused USA-193 to fail? Could it be that it wasn't closed out properly? Um..wasn't that your line of work?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/...21-usa-193.htm

Soon after launch John Locker in the UK reported that the NROL-21 satellite failed within hours of its launch and the solar arrays never deployed.

gturner wrote: View Post
Yep. SSTO is virtually unworkable, but there's no reason a two-stage rocket can't be reusable.
China looks to be doing work on their own spaceplane:
http://www.space.com/18410-china-spa...t-mystery.html

Big PDF
http://www.strategycenter.net/docLib...aneProgram.pdf
publiusr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 10 2012, 09:37 PM   #303
sojourner
Vice Admiral
 
sojourner's Avatar
 
Location: I'm at WKRP
Re: Envisioning the world of 2100

So, publiusr, what job/experience do you have in the industry?
__________________
Baby, you and me were never meant to be, just maybe think of me once in a while...
sojourner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 10 2012, 09:42 PM   #304
publiusr
Commodore
 
Re: Envisioning the world of 2100

Never said I did, I'm just a taxpayer who understands that Griffin who is part of the industry is no idiot. I think even Jim himself praised one of Griffin's speeches even though he thought Griffin needed to go. He made a claim of having info on the "ATK mafia" that he wouldn't back up--but that's ancient history now. Folks at nasaspaceflight have pro-and anti-SLS/HLV battles and do a better job at that than I ever did, so no loss.

Now in Jim's defense, what he says about KSCs crew is correct. They are not irrelevant, as some of the alt.spacers maintain. I'm actually not the one trying to put him or scores of other people out of work. He likes to trash MSFC which enrages me--but he does know his stuff. If you want to know--between Zenit and Delta II, which chills its kerosene and which heats it--he's your man. I actually like Jim.

And your expertise?

Last edited by publiusr; November 10 2012 at 09:57 PM.
publiusr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 10 2012, 10:49 PM   #305
sojourner
Vice Admiral
 
sojourner's Avatar
 
Location: I'm at WKRP
Re: Envisioning the world of 2100

Just a taxpayer who realizes while Griffin is no idiot, he is misguided.
__________________
Baby, you and me were never meant to be, just maybe think of me once in a while...
sojourner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 11 2012, 09:06 PM   #306
publiusr
Commodore
 
Re: Envisioning the world of 2100

To explore deep space we need a heavy-lift vehicle -SLS,” says Michael Gazarik, NASA, (hardly misguided) Or Carolyn Porco for that matter. Now this can all turn into a pissing contest into who is qualified to make what statements, and she was treated rather ugly over at nasaspaceflight and handled herself well there.

Nice to see a diversity of opinions all the same. Some here think any spending on space now is a waste. Byeman defends the KSC folks, and I do too. I don't think they are obsolete as newtype thought--and as Jim said they could easily find work elsewhere. But if they did, and heaven forbid something happens to Musk, then it would take some time to get that expertise back, if some of those folks refused to re-locate a second time, knowing they may be burned.

Now the idea of busy work may sound like pork to some, but having at least some type of goal Venture Star SLS/ MCT --whatever--is good for an industry. I like seeing all this LV development. Over-ripe? maybe. I'm sure Musk and the folks behind Antares are concerned about this block buy of EELVs, so what I would like to do now, if I may, is to postulate a post SLS space community.

Let's say SLS dies, and it comes down to Musk vs the ULA/EELV establishment. Who wins that one?
publiusr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 11 2012, 10:08 PM   #307
sojourner
Vice Admiral
 
sojourner's Avatar
 
Location: I'm at WKRP
Re: Envisioning the world of 2100

They both win.
__________________
Baby, you and me were never meant to be, just maybe think of me once in a while...
sojourner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 12 2012, 12:39 AM   #308
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Envisioning the world of 2100

publiusr wrote: View Post
Yep, that's Jim alright
If that's Jim, I find it even HARDER to believe.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 12 2012, 12:52 AM   #309
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Envisioning the world of 2100

publiusr wrote: View Post
I don't think they are obsolete as newtype thought...
And for the second time, nobody's claiming the workforce ITSELF is obsolete. The techniques they're used to working in, however, ARE, at least in the context of SpaceX and SNC, which is the specific reason why nobody brought that up as a counterpoint to the SLS push (and the specific reason why nobody wants to mention it, because it would imply that newspace is a direct competitor to the KSC establishment and not a potential asset as newspace enthusiasts have been claiming for years).

Suffice to say that the KSC crews could easily find work just about anywhere else. The sticky political point is that for most of them, "anywhere else" is most likely NOT one of the companies that is going to be getting COTS/CCiCap funding from NASA, and therefore certain politicians consider the commercial cargo/crew programs to be politically threatening (because even if 3000 of the 5000 ksc workers could get re-hired in space launch companies, the 2000 that remain would be pissed voters with an axe to grind with a potentially vulnerable incumbent).

Now the idea of busy work may sound like pork to some, but having at least some type of goal Venture Star SLS/ MCT --whatever--is good for an industry.
So is COTS/CCiCap. Better, actually, since the commercial crew/cargo lead to the development of new service providers instead of simply paying for over-priced services from existing companies.

Let's say SLS dies, and it comes down to Musk vs the ULA/EELV establishment. Who wins that one?
It's only a "vs" scenario if NASA pits them against each other and artificially keeps the competition even. ULA has a virtual monopoly on government programs and telecom, but SpaceX is chipping away at that; conversely, SpaceX has a virtual monopoly on commercial cargo and (essentially) on commercial crew, but SNC and Boeing (kind of) are chipping away at THAT.

There probably won't BE a clear winner, just the sub-dividing of the market into a couple of providers who specialize in different services. ULA might remain a major provider of satellite launch services while SpaceX with its lower prices and flexible business model could very well position itself as a servicer/courier for space stations and satellites after ULA has put them into orbit. IOW, ULA becomes Union Pacific while SpaceX becomes UPS.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 12 2012, 01:47 AM   #310
gturner
Admiral
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Envisioning the world of 2100

(because even if 3000 of the 5000 ksc workers could get re-hired in space launch companies, the 2000 that remain would be pissed voters with an axe to grind with a potentially vulnerable incumbent).
What if they used SpaceX and the other companies to blast those workers into space? Then all the senators would have to do is make sure the absentee ballots had an unfortunate accident during re-entry every six years.

It's win-win! The senators get to keep their jobs. The space enthusiasts at KSC get to go live on Mars or the moons of Jupiter or something. NASA gets to pretend that the pension checks are stuck in a failed orbit in perpetuity due to a second-stage booster problem, and the rest of us get cheap access to space.
gturner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 12 2012, 02:55 AM   #311
Crazy Eddie
Rear Admiral
 
Crazy Eddie's Avatar
 
Location: I'm in your ___, ___ing your ___
Re: Envisioning the world of 2100

^ I know this is in jest, but if we ever plan to get serious about space colonization, we're going to need to sell exactly this sort of plan to a few strategically important congressmen and get them to believe in it.

And by "get them to believe it" I of course mean "bribe the fuck out of them."
Did I say "bribe?" I meant "lobby" them.
__________________
The Complete Illustrated Guide to Starfleet - Online Now!
Crazy Eddie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 12 2012, 09:09 PM   #312
gturner
Admiral
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Envisioning the world of 2100

Here's today's Space Review article by Charles Miller titled "How the US can become a next generation space industrial power."

Along with re-usability, I've been wondering if horiontally oriented vertical launches would create a major cost-savings. If Boeings had to be stood on their tails for takeoff we wouldn't have an airline industry because the cost of such a delicate operation, from the required equipment (300 foot tall buildings, cranes, towers) to the days spent getting one set up, would be more expensive than the actual flight. Yet aiming an aircraft straight up once it's flying is trivial.
gturner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 12 2012, 09:20 PM   #313
sojourner
Vice Admiral
 
sojourner's Avatar
 
Location: I'm at WKRP
Re: Envisioning the world of 2100

Aircraft are not rockets. different criteria lead to vertical launches being more efficient for achieving orbit over horizontal takeoff.
__________________
Baby, you and me were never meant to be, just maybe think of me once in a while...
sojourner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 12 2012, 11:42 PM   #314
gturner
Admiral
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Envisioning the world of 2100

Actually the efficiency is the same because the horizontal orientation would be used only used for the actual takeoff, occuring at low speeds, not the rest of the flight. It's more a structural question, and whether the engines can re-orient 90 degrees without adding too much extra weight.

For military VTOL aircraft, tail-sitters proved too tricky and were quickly abandoned in favor of re-directing the thrust 90 degrees. Even though that requires a vast increase in complexity, the increased robustness and simplified operations more than compensated for the decrease in ultimate performance. The same advantages also saw tilt-rotors succeed where propeller-driven tail-sitters failed. If nothing else, landing a spent re-usable stage horizontally, where the motors only have to hover a nearly empty stage, might be a whole lot easier than trying to get one to tail-sit, along with the problem that once a stage has landed vertically, you have to either lay it horizontally anyway or move it vertically to a building so you can rebuild the stack.

Obviously horizontal launch would cut into the ultimate performance, but since our spaceflight problem is simplicity, robustness, and cost of a system, perhaps it would prove a better, more affordable long-term method, with faster turn-arounds and decreased support and infrastructure requirements.
gturner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 13 2012, 02:10 AM   #315
sojourner
Vice Admiral
 
sojourner's Avatar
 
Location: I'm at WKRP
Re: Envisioning the world of 2100

I've read too many arguments against HTOHL to agree with you. It ultimately comes to mass fraction. VTOL leaves more infrastructure on the ground than HTOHL and therefore has better mass fraction to orbit.

Now, TSTO is a different story. If you can build a big enough carrier aircraft capable of high altitude, high speed flight.

Horizontal takeoff is not desirable for getting to orbit. It is desirable for flexibility in orbital insertion. Something that is not a high priority unless you need fast deployment.
__________________
Baby, you and me were never meant to be, just maybe think of me once in a while...
sojourner is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:51 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.