4 ms·

The problem wasn't NASA. The problem was, NASA was told to build something impossible - a cheap and reliable spaceplane. It was many times more complex than any

by wisty 15y ago

The problem wasn't NASA. The problem was, NASA was told to build something impossible - a cheap and reliable spaceplane. It was many times more complex than anything else ever made (including the Saturn V). It was never going to be cheap and reliable. (Well, it might be possible today, with decades more experience and technology). Only the "yes men" said it was possible, and they got promoted. The rest of the engineers were forced to work in a bubble where a realistic big picture didn't matter. OK, you can privatize that. But the same problems will apply. Look at Australia's military acquisitions. Every vehicle we buy costs 10X the MOTS price, because there's always a requirement "modifications for Australian conditions". The private operators read this as "complete idiots in command", and charge accordingly. A privatized space sector would work the same way - stupid government orders will get stupid prices.

Retric 15y ago
They could have built a cheap and reusable space plane. The problem was they built it do far more than was necessary. You can build a "cheap" space-plane that get's 7 people to orbit at around 100-1000$/lb. (by cheap somewhere under 10 million a flight.) You can't build a cheap space plane that hauls up 7 people and 50,000LB of junk into space at back at the same time. If they just focused on people they could have avoided an external fuel tank and all those fragile tiles. Focus on a reasonable amount of structural redundancy and ended up with something that could get back from space without needing a new paint job let alone a full engine rebuild. PS: Feathers don't burn up on rentry but bricks do. The shuttle was far to close to a brick to get back without a lot of trauma.
- berntb 15y ago
  >>You can build a "cheap" space-plane that get's 7 people to orbit at around 100-1000$/lb. That would push the costs down by a factor of ten, at least. For man-rated space flight! What is the NASA track record for big projects that push costs down? (Didn't Burt Rutan have some story of when he built some high altitude air plane on an order -- and the NASA space suit integration team was larger than the team to design and build the aircraft?)
  - StrawberryFrog 15y ago
    > That would push the costs down by a factor of ten, at least. For man-rated space flight! I don't think so. Those 7 people need all the "junk" up there too. it's their living quarters, their food, their science experiments, etc. Maybe you launch it separately. But don't forget about the cost of that.
    - berntb 15y ago
      You missed my point -- 100-1000$/lb is at least a factor of ten less than anything else. (NASA is not noted for going factors of ten less than normal costs.)
      - onemoreact 15y ago
        I expect they would still blow a lot on R&D. However, rocket fuel for a small craft is not that expencive so it's really a question of how much inspection / repare the vehicle needs. A light craft could reinter the atmosphere with minimal heating, and you can build reasonably efficent but vary simple rocket engines so there is plenty of room to simplyfy matence. So, in theory we chould build a fairly cheap and reusable shutte to LEO. The real question is could NASA build such a ship? IMO, that's really just a question of would congress fund such a ship? PS: The space shuttle's never left the R&D stage. Practicly every flight change some significant internal system. If they had simply said "these are good enough" then the program would have been far cheaper.
        berntb 15y ago
        >>could NASA build such a ship? IMO, that's really just a question of would congress fund such a ship? Sigh. To repeat a trivial point for the third time... You have the opinion that NASA after 1970 could do any large project and push costs down by a factor of ten. If a serious argument could be made, then one of the NASA fan boys would have posted it...
        onemoreact 15y ago
cfgvjkljhgfb 15y ago
NASA was told to build something that was pointless - a LEO satelite delivery system with 7 crew. It's like being asked to design a 20 seater minivan. Then discovering your only customers are Mormon families on the school run and the Army - then trying to build something that fits both their requirements. Then being told that it must use a engine built in Hawaii and be assembled in Alaska.

by wisty 15y ago

Retric 15y ago

They could have built a cheap and reusable space plane. The problem was they built it do far more than was necessary. You can build a "cheap" space-plane that get's 7 people to orbit at around 100-1000$/lb. (by cheap somewhere under 10 million a flight.) You can't build a cheap space plane that hauls up 7 people and 50,000LB of junk into space at back at the same time. If they just focused on people they could have avoided an external fuel tank and all those fragile tiles. Focus on a reasonable amount of structural redundancy and ended up with something that could get back from space without needing a new paint job let alone a full engine rebuild. PS: Feathers don't burn up on rentry but bricks do. The shuttle was far to close to a brick to get back without a lot of trauma.

berntb 15y ago
>>You can build a "cheap" space-plane that get's 7 people to orbit at around 100-1000$/lb. That would push the costs down by a factor of ten, at least. For man-rated space flight! What is the NASA track record for big projects that push costs down? (Didn't Burt Rutan have some story of when he built some high altitude air plane on an order -- and the NASA space suit integration team was larger than the team to design and build the aircraft?)
- StrawberryFrog 15y ago
  > That would push the costs down by a factor of ten, at least. For man-rated space flight! I don't think so. Those 7 people need all the "junk" up there too. it's their living quarters, their food, their science experiments, etc. Maybe you launch it separately. But don't forget about the cost of that.
  - berntb 15y ago
    You missed my point -- 100-1000$/lb is at least a factor of ten less than anything else. (NASA is not noted for going factors of ten less than normal costs.)
    - onemoreact 15y ago
      I expect they would still blow a lot on R&D. However, rocket fuel for a small craft is not that expencive so it's really a question of how much inspection / repare the vehicle needs. A light craft could reinter the atmosphere with minimal heating, and you can build reasonably efficent but vary simple rocket engines so there is plenty of room to simplyfy matence. So, in theory we chould build a fairly cheap and reusable shutte to LEO. The real question is could NASA build such a ship? IMO, that's really just a question of would congress fund such a ship? PS: The space shuttle's never left the R&D stage. Practicly every flight change some significant internal system. If they had simply said "these are good enough" then the program would have been far cheaper.
      - berntb 15y ago
        >>could NASA build such a ship? IMO, that's really just a question of would congress fund such a ship? Sigh. To repeat a trivial point for the third time... You have the opinion that NASA after 1970 could do any large project and push costs down by a factor of ten. If a serious argument could be made, then one of the NASA fan boys would have posted it...
        onemoreact 15y ago

cfgvjkljhgfb 15y ago

NASA was told to build something that was pointless - a LEO satelite delivery system with 7 crew. It's like being asked to design a 20 seater minivan. Then discovering your only customers are Mormon families on the school run and the Army - then trying to build something that fits both their requirements. Then being told that it must use a engine built in Hawaii and be assembled in Alaska.