True. I hadn't thought of that. But I'd note that Ariane-5 was developed in the mid-90s, and was based on the Ariane-4, which also had SRBs. I wonder if they would make the same design choices today?
Also, I wouldn't classify Ariane-5 as heavy lift... it's in the same ballpark as Falcon 9. Not that that makes a huge difference in fuel choice. But it's interesting that both SpaceX and Blue Origin are not using LH2/LOX for their heavy-lift boosters.
SRBs are a pain-in-the-ass to "refuel"... it takes weeks of meticulous work. Liquid H2 is a "pernicious molecule" according to Elon Musk. It's so tiny it's hard to contain; it's colorless and odorless, and burns with an invisible flame. Yes, it gives you a higher ISP than RP-1, but not so much higher as to make it worth the trouble. (H2 is mostly used in upper-stages, where the higher performance has a better pay-off.)
Note: IANA rocket scientist, the above is just what I've gathered over the years as an armchair space enthusiast.
SLS has always been a make-work program to preserve legacy jobs at Space Shuttle contractors. If NASA (or anyone else) has set out to design the best possible heavy-lifter with today's technology, they wouldn't use strap-on SRBs, and probably wouldn't bother with H2/LOX in the first stage either. (Just look at the two private companies that are developing heavies -- SpaceX and Blue Origin.)
I have a running bet with some friends on how many times the SLS will fly (if ever). My money's on two flights before it gets the axe.
It is highly speculative, yes, but it's not my assumption, it comes from this talk by a Stanford lecturer, Tony Seba. He readily admits the trend of the past 20 years might not continue until 2030, but but he makes a pretty good case for a massive disruption of our energy and transportation systems in that time frame. It's a very thought-provoking talk; I highly recommend it, if you have the time.
The amount of installed solar capacity has been doubling every two years for the last couple of decades. How many more doublings will it take for solar to go from 1% to 100%? About six and a half, which if the trend continues, would mean complete solar domination by 2030.
The main point in the lecture is the trend in battery cost over the last 20 years, which has been falling at 14% per year. Mapping that trend into the future, the speaker (Tony Seba) predicts when EVs will cross certain price thresholds, finally hitting the $20k mark by 2023. He also notes along the way that the "fuel" cost for EVs is roughly 80-~90% less than for ICE cars. And since EVs typically only have about 20 moving parts, their maintenance costs are little more then fresh tires and wiper blades.
At that point, how many people will still want to buy an ICE car? When the equivalent EV costs the same (or less) to buy, costs WAY less to operate, and has much better performance, how many people will opt for the more expensive ICE vehicle? I guess we'll find out over the next few years.
Having 1-2% of your cars be EVs is better than having 0% of your cars be EVs
The point is, manufacturers are adopting EVs at a much faster rate than the "1~2%" curve would lead you to believe.
Put it this way: When Tesla announces the Model 3, and in less than one week a BILLION DOLLARS of pre-sales are logged, the industry sits up and takes notice. THEY sense that a tipping point is imminent, which is why they are rushing to meet the market.
Manufacturer projections are that they will be only selling 1-2% EVs by 2020
This point is directly addressed in the talk. He cites a 1985 McKinsey study that predicted cell-phone penetration would by 900k by 2000 (the actual number turned out to be 100+ million) to show that "experts" often fail to notice these disruptions. Yes, auto-makers may be projecting 1~2% sales by 2020, but the vast majority of them are rushing to bring EV's to market in the next few years. Their actions speak louder than their words.
Based solely on the falling price of battery "energy density", he predicts the "tipping point" for EV's will come in the early 20's... If we then apply your replacement rate for the vehicle fleet of 9%-per-year, we're pretty close to a complete turnover by 2030.
The speaker (Tony Seba) extrapolates the drop in Li-Ion batteries over the last couple of decades (~15%/yr) and predicts when an EV with 200mi range will reach certain price points over the next few years. (The book came out in 2014, so some of his predictions have already come true.)
By 2017-18, a 200mi EV will be available for $35~40k on the mass market. By 2020, a 200mi EV will be available for $30k (whereas the median price for a car in the USA is $33k). By 2022~23, a 200mi EV will be available for less than $25k... the low range for cars in the US market.
Given that EV's have a much lower cost of ownership -- lower cost for "fuel" plus FAR lower cost of maintenance -- only a complete IDIOT would buy an ICE car after 2023.
Same here. There's been a ton of work being done in the area of "storage" in recent years, and I've been following it all with geeky obsession... It's refreshing to get such a unique POV on the current state of the art from a veteran without much of an axe to grind. (Of course he favors his own new invention, but he's up-front about that... meanwhile, his insights on the overall industry and the basic chemistries in play are very illuminating.)
I recently saw a talk about the upcoming "Clean Disruption" which is right around the corner. He looks at secular trends, such as the falling price per watt of solar PV or the price per kwh of Li-Ion batteries, and concludes that our current modes of energy and transportation will be obsolete by 2030.
To portray the speed with which such 'disruptions' can occur, he begins the talk with a photo of 5th Ave., NYC, Easter Sunday, 1900. The street is packed with horse-drawn vehicles, but there is one car ("horseless carriage") in view, if you squint... Then he shows a photo from the same spot, same day, in 1913. The street is packed with Model-T Fords, and there is one horse in view, if you squint even harder.
He claims that we are on the threshold of a similar tipping point right now. By 2030, that same photo of 5th Ave. will show an ocean of EV's with only one ICE vehicle in view.
I would also put some of those originals (and their contemporaries) in the top tier: The Day the Earth Stood Still,Invasion of the Body Snatchers,The Thing from Another World,War of the Worlds... Obviously, you have to forgive the limited special effects of the day, but some of the stories were every bit as good as the top-rated films today.
And, though it's not a movie per-se, um... Twilight Zone anyone?
Same here, though perhaps a slightly different version. We had the 768k RAM option and went with a TTL display card (RGB was still pretty expensive at the time). In my last few years of school I wrote all my term papers on that thing using PC-Write.
I recently saw a lecture that made a similar claim: our current transportation and energy systems will be obsolete by 2030. (There's a book by the same guy called "Clean Disruption".) He cites several examples of disruption, from automobiles to cell phones, and notes that they are not incremental (though they may seem so at first). Instead, they follow an "S-curve" of exponential increase. He believes we are right now at the inflection point where several disruptive technologies are about to "go vertical" -- energy storage, electric vehicles, computing power, self-driving cars, solar PV, etc...
In 2014 (in the book) he predicted that $35~40k EV's would hit the market around 2017~18, and was right on the money. He further predicts that sub-$30k EV's will be available in 2020, and they'll hit $20k by 2023. Given the far lower operating costs of EV's, it will be very hard for gasoline cars to compete by that point.
As for self-driving technology... he predicts this will be "standard" on all new cars by the early 20's. In particular, he notes that the cost of LIDAR has dropped like a rock -- from $70k in 2011 to $90 in 2015 -- and Nvidia now sells a 2-TFLOPS GPU for fifty bucks. Adding the 'self-drive' option will cost about as much as the seat belts, and it has such obvious benefits... at some point it will probably become mandatory.
There's a lot more to the story... if the above sounds interesting, I recommend checking out the video.
Ditto. Just curious though... are you the originator of it? I copied it from an AC comment around 2000 or so. He (or she) could have gotten it from you.
Indeed, Elon talked about building-out customer support infrastructure in the recent quarterly "investor call." This is one of the reasons why they won't be paying any stock dividends in the foreseeable future.They need those revenues to build-out the infrastructure you describe.
My point is, they seem to be aware of the challenges you raise, and are devoting significant resources toward meeting them.
PS: I like your.sig.. it looks vaguely familiar.;-)
True. But another of Seba's points is that self-driving tech, combined with ride-sharing apps (like Uber) will make vehicle ownership itself obsolete (or at least 'moribund') by the mid-20s. The overall point is that technology revolutions don't happen incrementally, they follow an "S-curve" of exponential adoption.
Of course, in some situations, it will always make sense to own a car (eg: rural areas), but even then, there will be economic incentives to switch from gasoline to electric, both for maintenance and fuel cost per mile. At that point, it's just a matter of how "emotionally attached" you are to your 20-year-old gas guzzler... especially if oil prices go up again by that time, which is not a particularly unlikely scenario.
Meanwhile, the price of solar just keeps dropping. And the installed 'base' of solar capacity has doubled every two years since the 90s. I don't know what percentage of the world's energy demand is met by solar, but let's just say it's 1%.... how many more "doublings" will it take for solar to dominate the market? As any hacker can tell you, 2 to the 7th power is 128... which means that (if the current trend continues) solar PV will be the dominant player in the energy market by 2030 at the latest.
BTW, Seba puts the tipping point at 2025, when all new vehicles on the market will be electric. It will be interesting to see how that prediction plays out.
Yep. Eventually we will go all electric - or electric in some form from some kind of energy cell.
The adoption of EVs may go faster than most of us expect. I recommend folks take a look at Clean Disruption by Tony Seba. (Watch his lecture here if you prefer video.) He begins with a photo of 5th Avenue in NYC, Easter Sunday, 1900. The street is packed with horse drawn vehicles, but there is one "horseless carriage" visible (if you squint really hard). Next he shows a photo of the same spot, same day, in 1913. The street is packed with Model-T Fords, with only one horse visible (if you squint even harder).
Then he shows some data on the falling price of battery storage, solar PV panels, computing power, etc., and predicts where these secular trends will lead in the next several years. Though the book was published in 2014, his prediction that mid-range, "affordale" EVs ($35k) would come to market around 2017-18 has already come true, ahead of schedule. He then predicts that low-range ($20k) EVs will become available by 2022. At that point, there is no economic reason to buy a gasoline car. (EVs are a fraction of the cost per mile, and their "regular maintenance" is little more than fresh tires and wiper blades.)
In a nutshell, he says the current energy and transportation system will be obsolete by 2030.
Tesla doesn't make a profit and hasn't.
Tesla earns a 25% markup on every car they sell. The only reason they don't "make a profit" is because they reinvest all that revenue into new infrastructure. When CNBC talking heads whine about Tesla not posting profits, what they really mean is that Tesla is not paying dividends yet.
Well, boo-hoo... If you want a stock that pays good dividends, there are plenty on the market. Go buy some. If you want to make a long-term investment in the future, and are not looking for a quick ROI, then Tesla makes more sense.
They are planning to make the second stage reusable within the next few years. Developing an S2->space-tug conversion would be a detour from Elon's laser focus on reusability.
Take the old ones, and use them as the expenable middle stick in the big F9H or as a single stick throw. Or boost them all the way and make space station volume from them
You can't use a standard F9 booster as the "middle stick" in a Falcon Heavy, only as a "side stick". The center core of triple-stick rocket experiences a LOT of extra dynamic loading that doesn't occur in a single-stick configuration. It has to be radically redesigned to handle these loads.
In the post-launch press conference for this flight, Elon was asked about FH development progress. He said (paraphrasing here): "It seems like such a simple thing... just strap three rockets together and off you go. But no, it turns out it's crazy hard to do."
I couldn't agree more, in particular with the idea of NASA getting back to its NACA roots. And I suspect the SLS will provide some impetus in that direction, as it becomes more and more obvious to the public that it's a colossal waste of money, especially when privately developed rockets almost as powerful as SLS are flying at a much lower cost. If Thiokol (or whatever they're called these days) wants to continue building SRBs, let them compete in the open marketplace instead of bribing Congress-critters to require NASA to use them.
That's why so many space enthusiasts refer to SLS as the Senate Launch System. My friends and I are betting on how many times it will actually fly before it gets canceled (my money's on 2). By the time this thing flies (if ever) SpaceX and Blue Origin will already have heavy lifters available for a fraction of the price. The Falcon Heavy and New Glenn are not quite as powerful, yes, but both companies already have bigger rockets in development which will probably be available in the early-to-mid 20s.
Besides, in the current launch market there just isn't much need for a booster the size of SLS. And by the time such needs develop, the commercial ones from Musk and Bezos will be ready.
Slashdot Mirror
True. I hadn't thought of that. But I'd note that Ariane-5 was developed in the mid-90s, and was based on the Ariane-4, which also had SRBs. I wonder if they would make the same design choices today?
Also, I wouldn't classify Ariane-5 as heavy lift... it's in the same ballpark as Falcon 9. Not that that makes a huge difference in fuel choice. But it's interesting that both SpaceX and Blue Origin are not using LH2/LOX for their heavy-lift boosters.
SRBs are a pain-in-the-ass to "refuel"... it takes weeks of meticulous work. Liquid H2 is a "pernicious molecule" according to Elon Musk. It's so tiny it's hard to contain; it's colorless and odorless, and burns with an invisible flame. Yes, it gives you a higher ISP than RP-1, but not so much higher as to make it worth the trouble. (H2 is mostly used in upper-stages, where the higher performance has a better pay-off.)
Note: IANA rocket scientist, the above is just what I've gathered over the years as an armchair space enthusiast.
SLS has always been a make-work program to preserve legacy jobs at Space Shuttle contractors. If NASA (or anyone else) has set out to design the best possible heavy-lifter with today's technology, they wouldn't use strap-on SRBs, and probably wouldn't bother with H2/LOX in the first stage either. (Just look at the two private companies that are developing heavies -- SpaceX and Blue Origin.)
I have a running bet with some friends on how many times the SLS will fly (if ever). My money's on two flights before it gets the axe.
It is highly speculative, yes, but it's not my assumption, it comes from this talk by a Stanford lecturer, Tony Seba. He readily admits the trend of the past 20 years might not continue until 2030, but but he makes a pretty good case for a massive disruption of our energy and transportation systems in that time frame. It's a very thought-provoking talk; I highly recommend it, if you have the time.
The amount of installed solar capacity has been doubling every two years for the last couple of decades. How many more doublings will it take for solar to go from 1% to 100%? About six and a half, which if the trend continues, would mean complete solar domination by 2030.
That made me LOL! I'm tempted to make this my new .sig.. ;-)
I'd suggest you watch the lecture linked in my original post. All your questions are answered there.
But briefly: Yes, many major automakers have announced plans for EVs in the next few years. And of course, Nissan, Toyota, GM, and Daimler already have EVs on the market.
The main point in the lecture is the trend in battery cost over the last 20 years, which has been falling at 14% per year. Mapping that trend into the future, the speaker (Tony Seba) predicts when EVs will cross certain price thresholds, finally hitting the $20k mark by 2023. He also notes along the way that the "fuel" cost for EVs is roughly 80-~90% less than for ICE cars. And since EVs typically only have about 20 moving parts, their maintenance costs are little more then fresh tires and wiper blades.
At that point, how many people will still want to buy an ICE car? When the equivalent EV costs the same (or less) to buy, costs WAY less to operate, and has much better performance, how many people will opt for the more expensive ICE vehicle? I guess we'll find out over the next few years.
Having 1-2% of your cars be EVs is better than having 0% of your cars be EVs
The point is, manufacturers are adopting EVs at a much faster rate than the "1~2%" curve would lead you to believe.
Put it this way: When Tesla announces the Model 3, and in less than one week a BILLION DOLLARS of pre-sales are logged, the industry sits up and takes notice. THEY sense that a tipping point is imminent, which is why they are rushing to meet the market.
Watch the video, then get back to me...
Manufacturer projections are that they will be only selling 1-2% EVs by 2020
This point is directly addressed in the talk. He cites a 1985 McKinsey study that predicted cell-phone penetration would by 900k by 2000 (the actual number turned out to be 100+ million) to show that "experts" often fail to notice these disruptions. Yes, auto-makers may be projecting 1~2% sales by 2020, but the vast majority of them are rushing to bring EV's to market in the next few years. Their actions speak louder than their words.
Based solely on the falling price of battery "energy density", he predicts the "tipping point" for EV's will come in the early 20's... If we then apply your replacement rate for the vehicle fleet of 9%-per-year, we're pretty close to a complete turnover by 2030.
The speaker (Tony Seba) extrapolates the drop in Li-Ion batteries over the last couple of decades (~15%/yr) and predicts when an EV with 200mi range will reach certain price points over the next few years. (The book came out in 2014, so some of his predictions have already come true.)
By 2017-18, a 200mi EV will be available for $35~40k on the mass market.
By 2020, a 200mi EV will be available for $30k (whereas the median price for a car in the USA is $33k).
By 2022~23, a 200mi EV will be available for less than $25k... the low range for cars in the US market.
Given that EV's have a much lower cost of ownership -- lower cost for "fuel" plus FAR lower cost of maintenance -- only a complete IDIOT would buy an ICE car after 2023.
That's how 'disruptions' happen...
Same here. There's been a ton of work being done in the area of "storage" in recent years, and I've been following it all with geeky obsession... It's refreshing to get such a unique POV on the current state of the art from a veteran without much of an axe to grind. (Of course he favors his own new invention, but he's up-front about that... meanwhile, his insights on the overall industry and the basic chemistries in play are very illuminating.)
I recently saw a talk about the upcoming "Clean Disruption" which is right around the corner. He looks at secular trends, such as the falling price per watt of solar PV or the price per kwh of Li-Ion batteries, and concludes that our current modes of energy and transportation will be obsolete by 2030.
To portray the speed with which such 'disruptions' can occur, he begins the talk with a photo of 5th Ave., NYC, Easter Sunday, 1900. The street is packed with horse-drawn vehicles, but there is one car ("horseless carriage") in view, if you squint... Then he shows a photo from the same spot, same day, in 1913. The street is packed with Model-T Fords, and there is one horse in view, if you squint even harder.
He claims that we are on the threshold of a similar tipping point right now. By 2030, that same photo of 5th Ave. will show an ocean of EV's with only one ICE vehicle in view.
I would also put some of those originals (and their contemporaries) in the top tier: The Day the Earth Stood Still, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, The Thing from Another World, War of the Worlds... Obviously, you have to forgive the limited special effects of the day, but some of the stories were every bit as good as the top-rated films today.
And, though it's not a movie per-se, um... Twilight Zone anyone?
Same here, though perhaps a slightly different version. We had the 768k RAM option and went with a TTL display card (RGB was still pretty expensive at the time). In my last few years of school I wrote all my term papers on that thing using PC-Write.
I recently saw a lecture that made a similar claim: our current transportation and energy systems will be obsolete by 2030. (There's a book by the same guy called "Clean Disruption".) He cites several examples of disruption, from automobiles to cell phones, and notes that they are not incremental (though they may seem so at first). Instead, they follow an "S-curve" of exponential increase. He believes we are right now at the inflection point where several disruptive technologies are about to "go vertical" -- energy storage, electric vehicles, computing power, self-driving cars, solar PV, etc...
In 2014 (in the book) he predicted that $35~40k EV's would hit the market around 2017~18, and was right on the money. He further predicts that sub-$30k EV's will be available in 2020, and they'll hit $20k by 2023. Given the far lower operating costs of EV's, it will be very hard for gasoline cars to compete by that point.
As for self-driving technology... he predicts this will be "standard" on all new cars by the early 20's. In particular, he notes that the cost of LIDAR has dropped like a rock -- from $70k in 2011 to $90 in 2015 -- and Nvidia now sells a 2-TFLOPS GPU for fifty bucks. Adding the 'self-drive' option will cost about as much as the seat belts, and it has such obvious benefits... at some point it will probably become mandatory.
There's a lot more to the story... if the above sounds interesting, I recommend checking out the video.
Ditto. Just curious though... are you the originator of it? I copied it from an AC comment around 2000 or so. He (or she) could have gotten it from you.
Indeed, Elon talked about building-out customer support infrastructure in the recent quarterly "investor call." This is one of the reasons why they won't be paying any stock dividends in the foreseeable future.They need those revenues to build-out the infrastructure you describe.
My point is, they seem to be aware of the challenges you raise, and are devoting significant resources toward meeting them.
PS: I like your .sig.. it looks vaguely familiar. ;-)
True. But another of Seba's points is that self-driving tech, combined with ride-sharing apps (like Uber) will make vehicle ownership itself obsolete (or at least 'moribund') by the mid-20s. The overall point is that technology revolutions don't happen incrementally, they follow an "S-curve" of exponential adoption.
Of course, in some situations, it will always make sense to own a car (eg: rural areas), but even then, there will be economic incentives to switch from gasoline to electric, both for maintenance and fuel cost per mile. At that point, it's just a matter of how "emotionally attached" you are to your 20-year-old gas guzzler... especially if oil prices go up again by that time, which is not a particularly unlikely scenario.
Meanwhile, the price of solar just keeps dropping. And the installed 'base' of solar capacity has doubled every two years since the 90s. I don't know what percentage of the world's energy demand is met by solar, but let's just say it's 1%.... how many more "doublings" will it take for solar to dominate the market? As any hacker can tell you, 2 to the 7th power is 128... which means that (if the current trend continues) solar PV will be the dominant player in the energy market by 2030 at the latest.
BTW, Seba puts the tipping point at 2025, when all new vehicles on the market will be electric. It will be interesting to see how that prediction plays out.
Yep. Eventually we will go all electric - or electric in some form from some kind of energy cell.
The adoption of EVs may go faster than most of us expect. I recommend folks take a look at Clean Disruption by Tony Seba. (Watch his lecture here if you prefer video.) He begins with a photo of 5th Avenue in NYC, Easter Sunday, 1900. The street is packed with horse drawn vehicles, but there is one "horseless carriage" visible (if you squint really hard). Next he shows a photo of the same spot, same day, in 1913. The street is packed with Model-T Fords, with only one horse visible (if you squint even harder).
Then he shows some data on the falling price of battery storage, solar PV panels, computing power, etc., and predicts where these secular trends will lead in the next several years. Though the book was published in 2014, his prediction that mid-range, "affordale" EVs ($35k) would come to market around 2017-18 has already come true, ahead of schedule. He then predicts that low-range ($20k) EVs will become available by 2022. At that point, there is no economic reason to buy a gasoline car. (EVs are a fraction of the cost per mile, and their "regular maintenance" is little more than fresh tires and wiper blades.)
In a nutshell, he says the current energy and transportation system will be obsolete by 2030.
Tesla doesn't make a profit and hasn't.
Tesla earns a 25% markup on every car they sell. The only reason they don't "make a profit" is because they reinvest all that revenue into new infrastructure. When CNBC talking heads whine about Tesla not posting profits, what they really mean is that Tesla is not paying dividends yet.
Well, boo-hoo... If you want a stock that pays good dividends, there are plenty on the market. Go buy some. If you want to make a long-term investment in the future, and are not looking for a quick ROI, then Tesla makes more sense.
They are planning to make the second stage reusable within the next few years. Developing an S2->space-tug conversion would be a detour from Elon's laser focus on reusability.
Take the old ones, and use them as the expenable middle stick in the big F9H or as a single stick throw. Or boost them all the way and make space station volume from them
You can't use a standard F9 booster as the "middle stick" in a Falcon Heavy, only as a "side stick". The center core of triple-stick rocket experiences a LOT of extra dynamic loading that doesn't occur in a single-stick configuration. It has to be radically redesigned to handle these loads.
In the post-launch press conference for this flight, Elon was asked about FH development progress. He said (paraphrasing here): "It seems like such a simple thing... just strap three rockets together and off you go. But no, it turns out it's crazy hard to do."
As Elon said at the post-launch press conference, they plan to save this one and donate it to the Cape as a museum piece.
I couldn't agree more, in particular with the idea of NASA getting back to its NACA roots. And I suspect the SLS will provide some impetus in that direction, as it becomes more and more obvious to the public that it's a colossal waste of money, especially when privately developed rockets almost as powerful as SLS are flying at a much lower cost. If Thiokol (or whatever they're called these days) wants to continue building SRBs, let them compete in the open marketplace instead of bribing Congress-critters to require NASA to use them.
That's why so many space enthusiasts refer to SLS as the Senate Launch System. My friends and I are betting on how many times it will actually fly before it gets canceled (my money's on 2). By the time this thing flies (if ever) SpaceX and Blue Origin will already have heavy lifters available for a fraction of the price. The Falcon Heavy and New Glenn are not quite as powerful, yes, but both companies already have bigger rockets in development which will probably be available in the early-to-mid 20s.
Besides, in the current launch market there just isn't much need for a booster the size of SLS. And by the time such needs develop, the commercial ones from Musk and Bezos will be ready.