Slashdot Mirror
Design of Next-Gen NASA Rocket Showing Flaws
caffiend666 writes "According to an AP news article, NASA engineers are concerned about the design for the new rocket meant to replace the shuttle. Work on the project has revealed that the first few minutes of flight could see 'violent shaking', a serious flaw that might destroy the craft soon after launch. 'NASA officials hope to have a plan for fixing the design as early as March, and they do not expect it to delay the goal of returning astronauts to the moon by 2020. The shaking problem, which is common to solid rocket boosters, involves pulses of added acceleration caused by gas vortices in the rocket similar to the wake that develops behind a fast-moving boat.'
...before it's built. Seems like a non-story.
so they found a problem with a preliminary design. big deal. that's why they call it research and development.
how long did it take to design the saturn Ib/saturn V and make sure that they'd mate well with the apollo capsule? how long did it take to come up with skylab, an orbiting lab that could be mounted on a saturn V?
i expect it'll take about five to six years to bring the orion program to a complete first generation system.
when religion is no longer the opiate of the masses, governments will resort to real opiates.
You mean they didn't get the design of a prototype exactly right on the first try? Amateurs! Seriously though, where is the news here?
today is spelling optional day.
Certainly better than financials... I think they do awesome work. I have been proud of the rover project, and I think the knowledge gains from NASA missions have long tails.
If anyone else has read Diane Vaughan's Challenger Launch Decision, he or she will know that launch schedule pressure from upper management was a leading cause of the rationalization of risk that NASA undertook to justify flying with known Shuttle desgign flaws. Hopefully, in this case, the NASA senior managers are not applying the same mindless schedule pressures that leads to quick fixes and mindless workarounds at the expense of long term safety.
We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
How is it that astronauts managed to land on the moon in 1969 but the next mission to get people to the moon will take until 2020? With today's engineering tech - CFD software, advanced materials science, VR simulation, rapid prototyping technology - and lots of commercial sattelites shot into space every year, it should be much easier to get people to the moon and back safely than it must have been in the 60s. Unless of course that landing was faked as some people allege.
It's a harmonic vibration issue apparently, and these are generally solved quite easily. Adding or removing stiffness, a spiral wrap of an energy dissipating elastomer, isolation mounts, ading or removing mass (or simply moving mass around)... doesn't look like it's a severe issue at this early of the design stage. Someone's just being alarmist.
...put the crew cabin in between the boosters instead of on-top.....oh wait...
Table-ized A.I.
She can't hold much longer, captain!
Management....wants....a....launch....so....shut....the....fuck....up, Scotty!
Table-ized A.I.
Actually, NASA's ROI is pretty good at about $7 returned for every $1 spent. They also develop a lot of technology that doesn't have a financial ROI, but rather a simple non-tangible benefit to society as a whole. For example, they developed the CCD imager for use in the Hubble Telescope. That technology is now widely used in inexpensive digital cameras but is more importantly also used in medical imagers for detecting breast cancer. It has eliminated something like a half a million unneeded biopsies which not only save that cost, but also the pain from the procedure itself.
Bill
It's my Sig and you can't have it. Mine! All Mine!
Solid Rocket Boosters are sort of like strapping yourself to a firecracker. We can't have liquid ones?
Bruce Perens.
The first Saturn V rockets for the Apollo program had a similar problem with pogo oscillations. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,902216,00.html . Engineers were able to solve the problem back then, I'm sure they can come up with solutions again.
This was brought up last NASA story. Somebody pointed out that just ONE of the technologies produced for the Hubble telescope lead to more money saved on machines scanning for breast cancer than it cost for the Hubble in its entirety, and that's just the price tag, not the lives that have been saved because of that alone.
April 1957 to July 1969 = 12 years from STARTING the Saturn project to landing on the moon.
My biggest problem here is that they should already be flying X-vehicles. Wasn't that how progress was made? One to crash, One to fly, and One to hang up in the Smithsonian?
Since Ares keeps getting reduced in capabilities, I'm not confident that in 2015 ( when it's scheduled to start running ) we'll actually have anything delivered, and it's going to be another Turkey.
Step 1: Get NASA out of Manned Spaceflight.
Step 2: Success.
Step 3: Profit!
Technology -- No Place For Wimps! Grateful Dead and Jerry Garcia Chatroom -- http://www.wemissjerry.org
It's hard to put a price on discoveries.
It's not done yet; let them work it out. Next!
When stationary, the air must have a net velocity in excess of 400 mph for the engine to retain efficiency - which a turbine can easily do if there are no other complications. Eventually, the turbine gets in the way, hence the need for a really good bypass system. White Knight avoided the need for TAR by having the first stage as an actual aircraft, but a conventional aircraft isn't going to be capable of carrying the weight needed for true orbital flight, let alone interplanetary flight. Affordable space flight is probably going to require TAR engines.
(Other alternative launch-assist methods include using linear accelerators - basically strap the rocket onto something akin to a bullet train and then get the train up to the critical speed, or using a very powerful gas cannon to fire the rocket into the air at the critical speed. The first would likely end up more expensive to operate than a TAR, the latter would require a very sophisticated multi-charge arrangement if it is to avoid killing everyone onboard, but might end up being another viable method.)
One thing I think can be said for certain - by 2020, no sane engineer will be designing launch vehicles for space that use a rocket first stage. I'll give it a 40/60 chance that by 2020 commercial space flight will have surpassed NASA in terms of cost-per-unit-mass-launched, and 20/80 that hobbyist space flight will have done likewise. If NASA persists in long-outmoded next-gen launch vehicles, then somewhere in the 2030-2050 timeline, NASA will be redundant. Government-run organizations make sense for bleeding-edge work because that is generally too expensive for everyone else. However, once everyone passes said Government agency's technology, it has no value or merit. To have value for money, NASA should be working on systems that will become bleeding-edge in 2020, not what were bleeding-edge in 1920. R&D is the expensive work, everything else is meccano tech.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
I bet it's a hell of a lot more than the war in Iraq. I wonder what we could have accomplished by now if all of the money spent on the war had been spent on science instead...
Seriously, this was known about forty years ago and are called pogo oscillations. They are generally disastrous, and they were the cause of Apollo 13's fifth engine shut down after liftoff.
In general, I'm pretty non-plussed by NASA's moon landing attempts. Their design is basically Apollo rehashed plus forty years (fifty years if it actually launches - pretty depressing), the vast majority of it isn't reusable (I haven't got a clue how they can call it a shuttle replacement) and it really doesn't get us any further forwards in terms of making getting into space easier, safer and something that can be done on a regular basis.
""I hope no one was so ill-informed as to believe that we would be able to develop a system to replace the shuttle without facing any challenges in doing so," NASA administrator Michael Griffin said in a statement to The Associated Press."
Well, duh, the whole point of the 'shuttle-derived' Stick design was that it was supposed to be safe to fly and fast and cheap to develop because the shuttle technology would avoid these kind of 'challenges'.
But instead of building a capsule that could fly on the shuttle-derived launcher they've expanded it into an orbital RV which requires major changes to the launcher design to have any chance of reaching orbit.
Getting money for war is easy; getting it for science, education and healthcare....that's like work.
By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
This is a non-story. Rockets explode during their development.
SIGSEGV caught, terminating
wait... not that kind of sig.
"Link?"
I believe you'll find it's another made-up statistic to justify NASA based on 'spin offs'; most of those arguments turn out to be bogus when you actually look for proof.
In addition, if you want CCDs, you'd be better off spending the money to develop them and skipping over the entire mult-billion dollar HST thing. Now, I think the HST is a good thing, but it has to stand on its own merits, not on the basis of some possible 'spin offs'.
"... similar to the wake that develops behind a fast-moving boat."
Only different. Without water. Or a propeller. And no gasoline. Or a steering wheel...forget about steering - really.
WORMHOLE ALERT!
Ditto. I'm really curious to see where those numbers came from as well.
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/11/is-space-exploration-worth-the-cost-a-freakonomics-quorum/
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
I can see a return on investment for this discovery....sell it to Good Vibrations as a space-age dildo
Tolerance does not tolerate intolerance, or hypocrisy.
>they do not expect it to delay the goal of returning astronauts to the moon by 2020.
of course not, what's going to delay going to the moon again by 2020 is the fact that congress has no intention whatsoever of paying for that, and no one, not even Bush takes the program seriously.
Why are they wasting money on programs that are going to be thrown right out the window, never to be heard of again, as soon as the next president takes office?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Last year the 'problem' was that the Orion spacecraft was too heavy, and NASA was criticized on this forum. That was quickly and quietly solved, though the solution was not as widely reported inn the press. Ares I will use the largest solid rocket motor ever fired. Let the engineers work. If they can launch a space shuttle 120x using motors only 20% smaller, I think they can get the larger one working safely without the oversight of the New York Times.
an ill wind that blows no good
The first couple minutes really suck. Those SRB's shake bad. Once they burn out, the ride is really smooth. Solid rockets are that way, I am sorry, but you can't have fuel moving up the tube and the flame following it and have a smooth ride. Think of the solid fuel, it doesn't move, only the pressure. The farther it moves up the more the pressure changes here and there. POGO is something else. That is more from liquid fuel sloshing around, not presenting and even pressure. As the fuel is falling it adds more weight causing more thrust, and as the fuel splashes up, then there is less weight and pressure, meaning the engines are working to compensate. Someone will come up with something to make the ride some what tolerable. I don't think I'd ever want to ride that big long SRB into orbit. That will be more jarring 8 minutes of your life! ick.
IANARS, but these do not blow up. Heck even the challenger did not blow up. A seal popped open that allowed the exhaust to hit the fuel tank. The simple fact is that these are VERY safe. It has only several issues; The mix is hard to get right. Considering that it is the same mix that has gone into all 120+ x 2 shuttles, I am not too worried. The second is that once lit, there is no stopping it, and there is no throttling it (other than building it into the mix). This is not like strapping yourself to a fircracker, but to a simple bottle rocket that does not pop.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I wish NASA would put more effort into developing gaseous core nuclear rocket engines. There was a nuclear engine project in the late 60s using a solid core reactor, but gaseous core reactors have not been thoroughly explored. Whereas solid reactors melt above about 3500C, a "light bulb" type of reactor consisting of a hollow quartz bulb with a cloud of gaseous nuclear fuel confined in the center could operate at 25000 C, radiating in the ultraviolet range instead of heat per se. In an engine based on this type of reactor, hydrogen flowing past the outside of the bulb would be superheated and expelled as rocket exhaust. No chemical combustion, no radioactive emissions, just heat transfer.
Check out this interesting article, part 10 of a series, about a hypothetical design for a non-polluting, 100% reusable nuclear rocket based on the Saturn V form factor. Using existing engineering apart from the gaseous core reactor, it could lift 1000 tons of payload into orbit (6 times the capacity of the proposed single-use Ares 5 cargo rocket, and 30 times that of the shuttle), and then return 1000 tons of cargo to a powered vertical landing. No expendable fuel tanks, no solid booster recovery, just a big old Flash Gordon style rocketship. This is heavy lifting power that could take up a space hotel or moon base in one shot. It could power enormous ships to Mars in 3 months, not merely to explore but to colonize, carrying hundreds of people at a time, hundreds of tons of equipment and supplies, and highly effective radiation shielding.
I know it's the "N" word, but this rocket wouldn't be a nuclear disaster waiting to happen. If such a ship crashed or exploded and released its entire nuclear fuel load into the atmosphere, the nuclides released would be 1% of what came out of a single 1950s bomb test (and there were many of those).
I still can't believe after over 60 years of space research and were still shooting penises into the sky. Come on NASA can't we look to alternatives instead of just pumping our pricks bigger, no wonder the thing wobbles.
New political programs:
War on ignorance 1
War on ignorance 2
War on illness
Let's however get back from engineering dreamland and take a cold hard look at political reality. Anything with the word "nuclear" in it scares the shit out of the vast majority of people. Most people seem to be convinced that every nuclear device is a potential nuclear weapon waiting to go off, and that any nuclear accident will inevitably result in thousands of deaths and an area the size of Texas rendered uninhabitable.
I am perfectly well aware that the actual situation is nothing like that (and, furthermore, the results of a chemical rocket malfunctioning aren't pretty either). But nuclear rocketry in Earth's atmosphere is a nonstarter for the next couple of decades at least.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
NASA is just too damn stodgy and too conservative to stay ahead. Yes, you want things safe, but they're not even doing that very well. Fuel tank readings faulty for several missions before they bother to hold things back and fault-trace?! Results are what get the citizenry interested, and interested citizens are what it takes to get Congessional funding. You don't get results without moving ahead. It's not that much different from Formula 1 - the cars are horribly expensive to design, build and race, but those who keep winning can keep paying for it. Teams that rely on past glory - such as Lotus - die. Glory has no cash value, which is why even spectacularly successful missions aren't worth much more than any other successful mission. Only successful progress is redeemable at the local store.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
No, it is not simple, but yes, the Russian systems do work.
Alternatively the US could license the European Ariane technology, or they could revamp their old Saturn 5.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
With this new rocket we see the same idiotic non-scientific design. The rocket will be unstable folks. You know it, we know it. Make it look like Soyuz. Nothing will happen, but lives will be saved.
You proved the world that you can live with non-metric non-scientific Imperial measurement system (inches, pounds, arrow flights, feet, elbows, miles, stones, etc.), that the religion is the "best" spiritual foundation of the state. But maybe it is time to say: enough is enough, put the pride on the shelf, and do it right at long last?
Kinda like going from Enterprise 1701 to 1701 d.
What was your username again? -BOFH
You know, I'd be a lot more nervous about an article touting that there were not any flaws in the new system.
expandfairuse.org
Wow, that was really helpful. Thanks....
Last I checked, NASA doesn't do return on investment. The US doesn't get a monetary return on its space activities. And you claim $7 returned on $1 invested? Fantasy numbers. If it were truly delivering that sort of value, it'd never have trouble getting funding. Hell, there's be private enterprising getting a piece of that action too. Instead, we see that NASA pursues a host of low value activities, for example, limp, expensive unmanned scientific missions (science being a traditional low value product despite the numerous claims to the contrary) and a trivial amount of manned activity in space (even lower value than the science). And you somehow get that the $16 billion a year in NASA funding turns into $110 or so billion value for the US government? That is absurd, and a bit larger than the estimated GDP contribution from all US space activity (according to the FAA in reference 34).
Was able to find this. It's a little old, written in May 1995. And the numbers that the author uses were fairly old even then: 1978 through 1986. Haven't been able to find anything more recent.
Proponents estimates of the rate of return from NASA spending range from $7 in return from every $1 of NASA spending (Lyttle, David, "Is Space Our Destiny?" Astronomy, February 1991, page 6) to $23 in return for every $1 of NASA spending (Chase Econometric Associates, "The Economic Impact of NASA R&D Spending," prepared under NASA contract NASW-2741, April 1976).Although, the author disagrees with these estimates.
So rather than being an unusually good investment paying 7:1 or 22:1 for each dollar invested, NASA has an astoundingly bad 1:10 payoff -- about a factor of 100 worse than the commercial economy as a whole.I don't really agree with the author's logic here though. To arrive at this 1:10 (10%) return, he cites a study in which it was found that the $54B to $55B spent on NASA contributed to $21B in "sales and savings benefits", but only $5B of the $21B would have been impossible without NASA's contributions. NASA only partially contributed to the remaining $16B. To get this 10% return, he drops the entire $16B. However, I think $16B * (the percentage that NASA technology contributed) should have been included. Even if NASA technology only contributed 50% to that $16B, this would be about a 25% return altogether, which is better than the 20% "typical rate of return currently required on commercial investments".
http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/010396.html#010396
What exactly is the issue? The problem is that any structure has a resonant frequency at which it naturally vibrates. If you excite the structure at that frequency, you can develop a positive-feedback system that will literally shake it apart (the Tacoma Narrows Bridge is the classic example).
Solid rocket motors don't run particularly smoothly (compared to well-designed or even poorly designed liquids) and large solid motors provide a very rough ride. Everyone who has ever ridden the Shuttle to orbit has commented on how much smoother the ride gets after staging the SRBs.
Now, one way to mitigate this is to damp it out with a large mass. The Shuttle does this by its nature, because even though it has two of the things, they are not directly attached to the orbiter--they are attached to a large external tank with one and a half million pounds of liquid propellants in it, and it can absorb a lot of the vibration. Moreover, the large mass has a frequency that doesn't resonate with the vibration.
As I understand it (and I could be wrong, and I'm not working Ares, but this is based on discussions, many off the record and all on background with insiders on the program), there is a very real concern that the upper stage on top of the SRB in "the Stick" will be excited at a resonant frequency, but that even if not, the stage will be too small to damp the vibrations of the huge SRB below.
If this is the case, there is no simple solution. You can't arbitrarily change the mass of the upper stage--that is determined by the mission requirement. Any solution is going to involve damping systems independent of the basic structure that are sure to add weight to a launch vehicle that is already, according to most reports, underperforming. Or it will involve beefing up the structure of the upper stage and the Orion itself so that they can sustain the acoustic vibration loads. In the case of the latter, it is already overweight, with low margins.
So this constitutes a major program risk, that could result in either cancellation, or a complete redesign (that no longer represents the original concept, because the problem is fundamentally intrinsic to it).
Now, let's take apart the response a little:
Thrust oscillation is...a risk. It is being reviewed, and a mitigation plan is being developed. NASA is committed to resolve this issue prior to the Ares I Project's preliminary design review, currently scheduled for late 2008.
The problem is that NASA can "commit" to resolve it until the cows come home, but if it's not resolvable, it's not resolvable. They can't rescind the laws of physics, and we're approaching a couple of anniversaries of times when they attempted to do that, with tragic results.
Now this next part is (to put it mildly) annoying:
NASA has given careful consideration to many different launch concepts (shuttle-derived, evolved expendable launch vehicle, etc.) over several years. This activity culminated with release of the Exploration Systems Architecture Study in 2005. Since then, the baseline architecture has been improved to decrease life cycle costs significantly.
NASA's analysis backs up the fact that the Ares family enables the safest, least expensive launch architecture to meet requirements for missions to the International Space Station, the moon and Mars. NASA is not contemplating alternatives to the current approach.
The problem is that NASA didn't give "careful consideration" to the previous analyses after Mike Griffin came in. As far as can be determined, all of the analysis performed under Admiral Steidle's multiple CE&R contracts, performe
Ariane is a satellite launcher technology.
That means it is designed/built to be cheaper than a rocket safe enough to launch people.
The two are different goals : cheap and price competitive for commercial payload or safer for passengers.
OK, I am fine with NASA keeping the CCD patent that made cheep digital camera's possible. Or skipping that step and letting our tax on that product pay for NASA indirectly. But saying NASA does not pay for it's self and at the same time preventing it from filing patents is silly.
NASA and roads both pay for them selves by helping the economy which is then taxed. If you want to go after government programs like that bridge to nowhere that provide close to zero value that's one thing but saying NASA or the Federal Highway Administration don't pay for them selves is silly.
ALL of our early missiles from the 50's were liquid based. All of our space program has been liquid based. Mercury was based on Atlas. Gemini was based on Titans. Apollo used the Mighty Saturn V. ALL of these engines were liquid based. Some are kerosine/LOX, and others are Hydrogen/LOX. The main boost of the Shuttle is based on the SSME. The main boost of the Ares V will be liquid. Likewise, even spacex's engines are liquid based. The brits abanded their missles and their launch systems BECAUSE they had so many problems. Even to this day, ALL of their missiles are produced from America.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The thing that you ignore here is that the CCD would have been invented anyway. The real question is what does NASA add to the process? As I see it, there is a lot of overhead in NASA's activities that wouldn't be present, if say a private company did the same thing.
I see the problem here being one of opportunity cost.
This of course assumes the technology would never have been discovered if we didn't spend the initial investment; but by beating the would-be discoverer to the punch, we get the return soonerBut what technologies are discovered later because we are inefficiently allocating resources via NASA? You can say that solar cells, fuel cells, and velcro came sooner because NASA helped invent them. But NASA has been wasting money for decades. You don't see what's missing.
You can put a price tag on that.
Multiply the increased years of life by the their average income and you've got a number. Not very accurate, but a number anyway.
Your ad could be here!
before it's even off the cad-cam screens.
/. tag for "goddamn idiot press"?
No shit, sherlock?
Is there a
You sure talk a lot for an anonymous coward without any answers.
Can you show us all of this unnecessary waste in numbers?- International Space Station, $50 billion so far and another $20 billion by 2010. All that to show that zero gee is bad for the human body, some science experiments, and a mediocre test platform for new human technologies. All of this could have been duplicated by a Mir equivalent. And that feel-good from doing trivial things in space with foreigners.
- The Space Shuttle - design something so ambitious that it needs to grab the entire US launch market in order to make economic sense. Since it couldn't grab the US market, it ended becoming a boondoggle. Should have died by 1990 when they figured out that it would never make economic sense. And it costs $2 billion a year whether you fly a Shuttle or not. Huge overhead.
- Ares 1 duplicates near future functionality of the Atlas V and Delta IV. And since it's stealing business from commercial launch, we get to hamstring future US competitivity for the win.
- One-off science missions. If the science is so important, why not make a few copies of the probe so you can do more of it for cheaper per unit cost?
- Saturn V. Great if costly launch vehicle, but Apollo's flags and footprints didn't sustain the US presence on the Moon.
my guess is that you work for one of said private companies and are angry that the government is competing with you.Sounds a pretty good reason to me. I don't currently compete with NASA, but if I did, I'd be even more upset than I am. Why should government be competing with me? This does bring up another NASA complaint, that they screw with the private sector when it builds something that threatens a pet NASA project.
Perhaps you should go work for NASA? Or are you just complaining because you like to listen to yourself complain and think you're holding the big gummint accountable for your personal situation (whatever it may be)?Good chance I may end up working for a NASA contractor. Still doesn't mean that NASA is spending their money well.
Private American companies have no business in space any more than they belong in prescription drugs. As in, I'd rather China controlled our solar system than some fucking Microsoft or Pfizer. At least China wants what's best for 1.3 billion people - private companies just want money.Absurd argument. China's government wants what's best for the few people controlling China's government. Those 1.3 billion people are just something they got to ride herd on in order to keep what they have. And believe or not, wanting money is a more useful desire than what is "best" for an arbitrary group of people. After all, money doesn't grow on trees. You only get it by providing something that someone wants. So I believe that business should be in both space and prescription drugs.
They found a problem during the design phase? Good! Better now than 73 seconds after launch or during re-entry! Seriously, they've probably found several thousand issues by now - why is this even news? Trial and error is part of every rocket design project.
So long as the major ones (you know, the ones that'll kill someone) are fixed before launch there is no cause for alarm.
More since I didn't fully answer your questions.
Can you prove irrefutably that there's no return on investment?As I see it, there is no single example of a positive ROI in NASA. Everyone who tries to argue otherwise resorts to vague examples like the CCD. They ignore important and relevant concepts like opportunity cost and the observer effect. Finally, they justify NASA projects with a slew of intangibles like "science", "international cooperation", etc. Things that you can't possibly attach a dollar value to, but must be really important merely because they think it is.
What they can't do is point to a huge economic welling coming directly from space activities. It's just a jobs program for techies and could be replaced with some other jobs program for techies. NASA just isn't contributing economically and that's a real shame. I feel it could be doing a lot more than it is.
I really don't see how or even why I should attempt to make my argument "irrefutable". A true believer will also find some way out making it less than irrefutable. So to answer your question, I can and did put forth a decent argument, but I can't put together an irrefutable argument. It's not possible.
Can you honestly know that the CCD would have been invented in short time anyway? Of course not (keep in mind a "short time" for CCD development is several decades from creation to the prevelance of today). But it's pretty stupid to ignore that it'd probably have been created anyway. After all, astronomers needed something like it and a few of them had the technological capability on their own to make such a thing. The US Department of Defense would have developed them anyway. And digital cameras are compelling in their own right.Solid rockets have been used for over 50 years. Not one of them has ever shaken apart its payload. If Keith wants NASA to abandon the Ares 1 because of basic science cuts, he should just say so.
I see two problems with the continual of this argument, assuming you are the same AC as before.
First, if the US economy is controlled by 12 (or whatever it is now) companies through government agencies, then they have become government and no longer qualify as private business. Hence, they should be "ok" in your book. Second, we don't actually see signs of this degree of control over the US economy. I know, if I had a 12th share of control over the Fed, I'd have turned that into a "small" keiretsu (Japanese top-down managed conglomerate) by now (well by the 60's). It's not trivial, but the key problem would be keeping the Fed share.
We're using different definitions of ROI here. My mistake. Your ROI means you get more back than you put in. I use "positive ROI" to mean that. "Negative ROI" means money goes in and less comes out. I see NASA's current activities as a great example of negative ROI.
I didn't say that what's best for 1.3 billion people isn't what's best for their leaders - quite the opposite; if China claimed solar system resources, it would do wonders for the PRC and every citizen thereof regardless of what their leaders wanted. Their leaders can't develop those resources without the very people they lead.In practice it works out that what's best for the leaders isn't the same as what's best for the followers. So you are correct in that you didn't say that, but it's very foolish to believe government and civilian interests coincide. Finally, one could use the same argument to claim that business-based governments would make the same decisions. After all, they would be governments. And they have the same decision payoffs.
I'll protect you from the outcome of your absurd claim. The resolution of this paradox is simply that governments do not automatically further the interests of the governed. There are plenty of examples of governments throughout history who utterly fail to do this. There is even an example of a business state (the Congo Free State) as ruthless and evil as the worst governments out there. The point though is that those ruthless, evil governments existed. It's foolish to pretend for the sake of some argument that things are different.
WHAT?! Who told you that? There are THOUSANDS of ways to extort it, steal it, fabricate it, launder it, legislate it, or otherwise leverage it into your hands. Sure there are. By far, the most profitable thefts come out of government. I'm unclear on what you're trying to claim here. A private business in space has to make money somehow. If they can't use government to steal it from someone, then they're stuck actually having to provide a service. That's why the economics associated with capitalism works. I'm not going to get worked up over private business in space because that's what's required to do anything concrete in space. If you're not making money, that is a positive ROI, then there's no incentive to stay in space and build on what you have.A couple of examples that come to mind that have benefited society quite a bit including large amounts of money saved and created are weather satellites and communications satellites.
Even knowing these are possible no private company yet has created a rocket that could get these up there and at the time no private company believed these would pay of anywhere near how they have payed of.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
That's the only reason I can think of why the 21st century doesn't look like 1960's science fiction about it.
Big fireworks (aka. solids) are not necessarily the best choice for a first stage. The arguments for the stick were that it is:
-A known quantity
-Manrated
-In production
Then it gained a segment, because the CEV gained some weight. Now these new problems might force a redesign in thrust profile etc.. So basically we'll end up with a big, shiny, new fireworks, invalidating the original argument.
When the basis for a technical decision are no longer valid, it's best to assess anew. Anyone wants to bet on that happening?
Cheers,
Michael
Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Orbital Sciences all have rockets that can put satellites in orbit. And the Pegasus (Orbital Science's first launch vehicle) was developed as far as I know with private money. The thing to remember here is that government is far easier to get and more profitable than pure private business and to an extend government contracts exclude private business. For starters, it would have been foolish for the early era rocket builders to ignore government funding. They are after all in the business of making money. Now, we're seeing a second effect. The big rocket makers, Boeing and Lockheed are abandoning the smaller markets because they'll be unable to charge as much for their launchers in government contracts, if they're simultaneously selling a cheaper commercial alternative.
Finally, I want to point out that we simply don't know how space development would have proceeded without the huge government spending. This is an example of observer bias. But it seems silly to me to assume that no one would try to put a rocket together over the past 50 years, if the government money weren't there.Google for donut on rope sometime :)
They ARE out to get you simply because They are in it for themselves and they don't care about you.
the Ariadne won the X-Prize
What are you talking about? The Ansari X Prize was won by Scaled Composites with SpaceShipOne. Nothing called "Ariadne" even competed for the prize.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
I'm quite familiar with the speculation on "Aurora" and all the other names associated with this hypothetical craft. There's absolutely no hard evidence anywhere that it exists. Everything you can dig up is pure circumstantial evidence. I'll be the first to admit that if such a plane did exist, it would naturally be almost -- if not completely -- impossible to verify its existence due to classification. However, lack of verifiable information does not necessarily conclude there is a government cover-up of a hypersonic aircraft. It may exist, it may not.
Based upon the costs to develop and operate such a craft, not to mention the support infrastructure that would be required, I'm of the opinion it does not exist. Defense intelligence ops have centered around satellites for some time now, as has photo reconnaissance. It's cheaper and safer than sending in a manned aircraft. The few advantages available in a hypersonic recon platform such as the "Aurora" are hugely outweighed by the negatives.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky