Although some Snow Leopard details may not be available yet, most components of the Mac OS X security architecture pre-date Snow Leopard, and details are available, in places like this... Mac OS X Security Architecture
Earth to Moon: 384,000 km
x,000,000 km (One! One order of magnitude larger... Ah! Ah! Ah!)
78,000,000 km (Two! Two orders of magnitude larger... Ah! Ah! Ah! (well, close to 3))
I'm pretty sure I don't want you eating smelly cheese and runny eggs when we're cooped up in a can the size of bus in zero gravity for a couple years. French fries, sure. French bread, fine. Just don't get carried away.
With so many modules built, independently, in so many countries, spare parts from cancelled Russian and stalled American programs re-purposed, multiple, incompatible electrical systems, and whatnot, it's pretty easy to see that the ISS mode of international cooperation was not particularly efficient. Billions of dollars could have been saved if it had been coordinated in a smarter way. ISS was a success by some measures, but probably shouldn't be used as a model to be copied.
"As I understand it, the version numbers here are pretty much on par with a Microsoft OS version number so 10.5 to 10.6 will be like going from 98 to Win2k "
Upgrading from Leopard to Snow Leopard is more like going from the computer of the Enterprise NCC 1701-A to the computer of the Enterprise NCC 1701-D.
The transition from Windows 98 to Windows 2000 was not like that at all. That was more like being hooded, shackled, and moved under cover of darkness from Applebee's to TGI Friday's.
BlogSpot is about as low maintenance as you can get, and you can point it to your own custom domain, now. It's possible that you have other requirements (open source, various plugins, non-commercial, whatever) which is fine, but if you just want to reduce the maintenance load, it's an option.
What fascinates me most is that we've apparently already spent about $US (2008) 9 Billion on Aeries 1 and Orion. It costs as much to do the wrong thing, as to do the right thing.
The VentureStar approach for manned flights to orbit, by the way, was to first demonstrate vehicle reliability and iron out design issues over many flights, then build a manned module in a payload container. It was a brilliant approach, really.
I never saw this discussed, but it seems like a system like this could be approached in the same way as aircraft (commercial and military) which benefit from retrofits and successive design iterations, too. Build the first two and fly them. Later they get upgraded engines, for example. This could be done if the addressable market included ESA, India, Japan, for example. Heck, even Russia might be interested in buying a couple. All of those programs could benefit from cheaper access to LEO. The overall program would benefit from building a larger number of vehicles, and the improvements permitted by successive design iterations.
Orion was a fascinating concept, but the approach isn't scalable on a very important axis -- number of flights per year. Sure, you could launch a lot of payload with one launch, and that might be useful from time to time, but getting to orbit on demand at a lower cost than we can do today is more important. If we invest, at a consistent steady pace, we can build systems to reduce the cost of getting to orbit. If we invest in technologies like VASIMR, we can reduce the amount of fuel we need to haul up to LEO to get somewhere else, which has a very nice multiplier effect.
Reducing the cost of access to space will make it possible to do many things, great, interesting, useful, economically beneficial, and fun. Rather than a few trips to the Moon a year, and a trip to Mars once or twice, and then nothing for fifty years, we could have ongoing routine exploration, manned and unmanned, expanding our reach, for the same price. Focused and continued R&D is the key. We have come tantalizingly close to setting the right, attainable goals, and nearly reaching them, with the X-33, VentureStar project, which sought to develop a set of specific technologies in such a way that the end result would be a transportation system. Had we stuck with it, we would have it by now, at a cost which would have appeared to be modest by STS standards. More importantly, it would liberate substantial sums which are currently hostage to the operational budget of the STS. Other technology approaches to similar cost-per-kilo performance and reduced operational cost are possible, such as Skylon. Unfortunately, the Orion / Aries approach is not designed to meet these goals, and will never achieve meaningful increases in flight rates.
Even tiny sums of investment and tiny prizes have stimulated technologies like electromagnetic rail launch (pioneered with a grass roots donation campaign, which funded research spanning decades, by the Space Studies Institute) and tether climbers for space elevators. Even a well-funded, focused R&D effort might not bring an Earth to orbit space elevator for a long time, but without the effort it will certainly take longer. A fascinating intermediate step would be a space elevator from the lunar surface to lunar orbit. No atmosphere or weather to contend with, shorter elevator system and smaller gravity well. The payoff would be dramatic reductions in fuel mass required to sustain a base on the lunar surface -- a huge multiplier effect.
Spending on research like this takes place on Earth. The benefits would be substantial. Now is the right time to start.
It can be helpful to look at some actual data once in a while, calming, even. The problem is big, yes, but the historical record shows that the USA was able to reduce it's total national debt as a percentage of GDP, consistently since World War II, with the notable exceptions of the years of Reagan, Bush, and Son of Bush. This was done by growing the economy. It could be done again. One of the best ways to stimulate that kind of massive economic growth would be to use space exploration and alternate energy as a replacement for the military research and development, which drove much of this growth during the Cold War. USA National Debt as Percentage of GDP. If we choose not to do something like this, the debt will be crushing, yes.
It's going to be hard to hold anybody accountable if we can't even talk about this honestly. Take the article summary for example. The appropriate term here isn't "apparent consensus" it's "manufactured consensus brought to us by [corporate sponsors here]".
Oh, I think it's certainly possible for private industry to fund this. However, I think it's highly unlikely. You can discount all the funding that's going into sub-orbital flights. That's a separate "vomit comet" tourism industry which isn't really helping to advance the technologies required for space access, and are not designed to do so, despite the marketing hype. That appears to be about half the billion dollars a year. The companies actually trying to get to orbit are part of a long series of under-funded efforts. Most of those companies are trying to develop systems which reduce costs slightly below the Delta and Atlas levels, and are not trying to significantly advance the state of the art.
Your arguments have prompted me to realize something else, however. The amount of venture capital available to fund stuff like this has clearly increased over the past 50 years. As the economy continues to grow, the funding required to build a launch system, expressed as a percentage of GDP declines. It might well be the case that it's "inevitable" as some say that private industry will pave the road to space. I'm still convinced that this can be accelerated by a more intelligent government involvement. NASA unfortunately has a long track record of screwing this up. (They've done other things well.)
NASA and Lockheed Martin estimated that it would cost $US(1999) 7.2 Billion to build and begin flying the first two VentureStar vehicles, following the completion of the X-33 flight demonstrations. This included launch infrastructure. (My flawed recollection was based on earlier estimates which suggested four vehicles at about $5 Billion, but I'm hardly off by a factor of "nuts".)
At first glance it might seem that the VentureStar would have been more complex than the shuttle, but that's a mistaken impression. The X-33 program to build a scale flight demonstration unit was funded at less than $US1999 1.5 Billion. For that price, an impressive set of technologies were developed and tested, and they were all quite successful, with the notorious exception of the carbon fiber cryogenic Liquid Hydrogen tank. The vehicle design was actually quite a bit simpler than the Shuttle from many important perspectives. The flight article was very nearly compete. The program would have come in under $2 Billion even if it had been up-funded to replace the carbon fiber tank with aluminum-lithium. The original estimates for the VentureStar were in the neighborhood of $US (1999) 6 Billion to build 4 VentureStar vehicles.
Innovative aerospike engine for better performance with fewer moving parts than SSME
SSTO lifting body design, vertical takeoff, horizontal landing (and importantly, horizontal processing, cheaper and more flexible launch infrastructure)
novel metalic thermal protection system, more reliable, more durable, dramatically easier to service
vehicle designed for high flight rates, quick turn-around time (no noxious propellant for on-orbit maneuvering system, contrast the Shuttle, for example)
VentureStar provided simplified, standardized ("container" based) payload integration, rather than an orbiting space station capability like the Shuttle
Engineers from the project claimed that NASA directed the carbon fiber tank exploration in X-33, over the objections of the engineers. (This should sound familiar. This type of bureaucratic snafu created problems on the Shuttle program.) The program goals could have been achieved with a (low-risk) aluminum-lithium tank, apparently. Furthermore, Lockheed Martin funded additional R&D on the carbon fiber tanks after the cancellation of the X-33. Although the technology wasn't quite ready at the time the X-33 was cancelled, it was relatively close at hand, certainly as compared to long range projects like scramjets. X-33: What Really Happened.
Yes, it is also truly amazing how many such efforts exist. However, the history of this industry has been one of under-funded efforts which drag on as paper studies and modest R&D technology explorations, which then fold.
Regular readers of my comments will know that I'm highly critical of NASA. However, it's important for enthusiastic supporters of space exploration to understand that private industry, left to its own devices, is not likely (is, in fact, extremely unlikely) to fund the R&D required to build the next generation of space transportation system. Getting to LEO is a big, big project. Much bigger than the trans-continental railways. Private corporations do not have the vision required for long term investment on this scale. They have quarterly numbers to meet, impatient and risk averse investors and managers.
The entire global investment in privately funded launch programs, if combined into a single program, is probably still a bit shy of appropriate funding for a single modern system, say, the Skylon program.
What we need is rational, visionary, intelligent and consistent policy, with consistent and rational funding to back it up. Governments, funding the next generation of launch systems required to get to orbit more reliably and more cheaply (through agencies like NASA, or maybe DARPA) will need to be involved.
But they need to be directed and funded to do the job, and do it with the right goals in mind. The X-33 VentureStar program had the right goals and the right plan for reaching them. (Skylon's goals are similar.) Private industry (Lockheed Martin) was instrumental in helping to define those goals, by the way. The original long range plan for the X-33 program involved a privately operated fleet of launch vehicles, VentureStar. NASA's role was to fund initial risk reduction (technology development) in the X-33 program, and probably subsidize the initial construction of the vehicle fleet at some level (through guaranteed purchases of payload delivery).
A smart approach would be to fund development of both Skylon (about 12.5 tons to LEO) and X-33/VentureStar (about 25 tons to LEO). The systems are designed to fit different parts of the launch market. They should be developed jointly, so they can use common subsystems, such as compatible payload support for example. The combined systems would begin to create a private launch market, with a much more flexible delivery of payload to space.
Cash for Clunkers was originally funded at $US 1 Billion. Congress is negotiating this week to add an additional $US 2 Billion to the program. The original intent of the program was to stimulate the auto industry, encourage consumers to buy more fuel efficient cars, while removing older less efficient cars from the roads permanently. Key provisions of the program were compromised during its initial passing, which result in only slight gains with respect to carbon emissions, particularly when the carbon cost of producing the new vehicle is accounted for.
Three billion bucks would have purchased a revived X-33 program, starting over from scratch if necessary. Since the technology developed for the X-33 is still around, it's likely that $3 Billion would get you through the complete construction and flight testing of the X-33, and then started building the first full scale VentureStar vehicle. They would probably cost about $1 Billion each, if you built four or five. We should plan to build these like airplanes. Build one set or "block" of maybe 2 or 3 craft, then do a round of design improvements, retool and build a second block of improved vehicles, say 7 or 8, for a total of 10 vehicles in the fleet.
This would make sense, if the goal were to actually build a more reliable and less expensive access to space. Unfortunately, NASA continues to optimize for unfathomable bureaucratic goals, and misguided attempts to recapture perceived glory of Apollo.
If this was funny, it would be a joke. The NASA press release on this says:
"NASAâ(TM)s Commercial Crew and Cargo Program is applying Recovery Act funds to stimulate efforts within the private sector to develop and demonstrate human spaceflight capabilities. These efforts are intended to foster entrepreneurial activity leading to job growth in engineering, analysis, design, and research, and to economic growth as capabilities for new markets are created. By developing commercial crew service providers, NASA may be able to reduce the gap in U.S. human spaceflight capability. All ARRA funded activities must comply with its provisions and will conclude no later than September 30, 2010."
This is yet another Stupid NASA Trick. Are they serious? At this level of funding, which wouldn't even pay for the airlock on the Orion capsule, a private contractor is going to "bridge the gap" that NASA created? If NASA hadn't killed promising R&D programs like the X-33 (VentureStar), we would already have replaced the Shuttle with a system which reduced flight costs substantially, improved safety and reliability, has shorter turn-around times, and can fly more often. Which, by the way, is what is needed to help stimulate a growing space economy. It all depends on reduced cost of, and increased reliability of access to orbit. Constellation isn't going to provide that. COTS, (and this new bit, given a new name to keep 'em guessing) are funded at levels so low as to guarantee NASA will never face competition from the private companies which win these bids. This is not a joke, it's a charade.
If the objective were to create a private market for access to space, NASA could do this easily. All they need to do is announce that they will buy payload to LEO delivery services from the private market, at market rates. Right now market rates for a single launch of a modest payload are higher than the total size of this program.
NASA probably spent more than this on artwork and publicity for Contellation / Orion / Aeries.
The best way to eliminate waste and inefficiency on large projects like planes and rockets would be to make it illegal or better yet impossible, for Congress to gerrymander the sub-projects and manufacturing plans. NASA struggles to get funding support in Congress. NASA works with its primary contractors to "solve" that problem by dividing contracts up along artificial lines and spreading parts out to every Congressional district possible. This is not really the fault of Lockheed Martin (et. al.) but the fault of Congress. Left to their own devices, Lockheed Martin would rather build, say, something like the X-33 / Venture Star system, by optimizing for efficient production, rather than maximizing the number of sub-projects deployed to the maximum number of Congressional districts.
Actually what happened was that the Bush administration directed NASA to focus on a new mission -- returning to the Moon, and sending Astronauts to Mars (and also directed NASA to retire the shuttle) -- but did not provide NASA with the additional promised funding. NASA, therefore, in order to try to meet those mission goals within the projected funding levels, decided to retire ISS earlier than originally planned. I hope that the new administration fixes this problem. ISS is a marvelous research platform, and if we de-orbit it in 2016, we're going to wind up needing to build another one at a later time.
No, not really. The technology in the White Knight / Virgin system is impressive, but they are not really paving the way to orbit, and they're not really trying to do that. They identified a market for sub-orbital trips with a really marvelous view, and they're trying to fill that market need. The Virgin system is a commercial successor to NASA's "Vomit Comet.
The X-33 / VentureStar program was paving the way to cheaper, more reliable, more frequent access to space. This was a well thought out R&D program with a realistic technology development path. If you want cheaper access to space, this is the right way to start.
There's also the proposed Skylon system. It shares some of the general approach to reducing flight costs (standardized payload integration for example) but is based on a different engine technology, a hybrid, hydrogen powered, jet and rocket engine.
It's likely that both types of systems could be developed, for less than the cost of continuing to fly systems based on custom integrated payloads on vertical rocket stacks launched from 1960s era launch pads. Either of the systems would be dramatically more flexible than the various fleets of rockets we currently support or are building: Atlas, Delta, Aeries I.
The planned Aeries V rocket would provide a single-payload lift capability much higher than either the planned X-33-derived VentureStar or the Skylon system and could carry physically larger payloads. That might be useful, if the payload needs are infrequent, and high value (you're willing to tolerate $500 million per flight launch costs). Otherwise, the VentureStar design should scale up nicely to a larger vehicle, once the first generation has been flying a while.
Nobody can remember the moronic URL to his data processing service anyway, so it doesn't matter what he claims. Does the Pope shit in the woods when a tree falls and nobody hears him spanking his monkey with one hand? Probably not.
Slashdot Mirror
You probably didn't watch the Count and Cookie Monster, either.
Uh-huh. And did you read the second sentence? It is clear that you did not.
Although some Snow Leopard details may not be available yet, most components of the Mac OS X security architecture pre-date Snow Leopard, and details are available, in places like this... Mac OS X Security Architecture
Earth to Moon: 384,000 km
x,000,000 km (One! One order of magnitude larger... Ah! Ah! Ah!)
78,000,000 km (Two! Two orders of magnitude larger... Ah! Ah! Ah! (well, close to 3))
Order of Magnitude (please click and read.)
The Count and Cooke Monster on cooperation
I'm pretty sure I don't want you eating smelly cheese and runny eggs when we're cooped up in a can the size of bus in zero gravity for a couple years. French fries, sure. French bread, fine. Just don't get carried away.
With so many modules built, independently, in so many countries, spare parts from cancelled Russian and stalled American programs re-purposed, multiple, incompatible electrical systems, and whatnot, it's pretty easy to see that the ISS mode of international cooperation was not particularly efficient. Billions of dollars could have been saved if it had been coordinated in a smarter way. ISS was a success by some measures, but probably shouldn't be used as a model to be copied.
Upgrading from Leopard to Snow Leopard is more like going from the computer of the Enterprise NCC 1701-A to the computer of the Enterprise NCC 1701-D.
The transition from Windows 98 to Windows 2000 was not like that at all. That was more like being hooded, shackled, and moved under cover of darkness from Applebee's to TGI Friday's.
BlogSpot is about as low maintenance as you can get, and you can point it to your own custom domain, now. It's possible that you have other requirements (open source, various plugins, non-commercial, whatever) which is fine, but if you just want to reduce the maintenance load, it's an option.
What fascinates me most is that we've apparently already spent about $US (2008) 9 Billion on Aeries 1 and Orion. It costs as much to do the wrong thing, as to do the right thing.
The VentureStar approach for manned flights to orbit, by the way, was to first demonstrate vehicle reliability and iron out design issues over many flights, then build a manned module in a payload container. It was a brilliant approach, really.
I never saw this discussed, but it seems like a system like this could be approached in the same way as aircraft (commercial and military) which benefit from retrofits and successive design iterations, too. Build the first two and fly them. Later they get upgraded engines, for example. This could be done if the addressable market included ESA, India, Japan, for example. Heck, even Russia might be interested in buying a couple. All of those programs could benefit from cheaper access to LEO. The overall program would benefit from building a larger number of vehicles, and the improvements permitted by successive design iterations.
Orion was a fascinating concept, but the approach isn't scalable on a very important axis -- number of flights per year. Sure, you could launch a lot of payload with one launch, and that might be useful from time to time, but getting to orbit on demand at a lower cost than we can do today is more important. If we invest, at a consistent steady pace, we can build systems to reduce the cost of getting to orbit. If we invest in technologies like VASIMR, we can reduce the amount of fuel we need to haul up to LEO to get somewhere else, which has a very nice multiplier effect.
Reducing the cost of access to space will make it possible to do many things, great, interesting, useful, economically beneficial, and fun. Rather than a few trips to the Moon a year, and a trip to Mars once or twice, and then nothing for fifty years, we could have ongoing routine exploration, manned and unmanned, expanding our reach, for the same price. Focused and continued R&D is the key. We have come tantalizingly close to setting the right, attainable goals, and nearly reaching them, with the X-33, VentureStar project, which sought to develop a set of specific technologies in such a way that the end result would be a transportation system. Had we stuck with it, we would have it by now, at a cost which would have appeared to be modest by STS standards. More importantly, it would liberate substantial sums which are currently hostage to the operational budget of the STS. Other technology approaches to similar cost-per-kilo performance and reduced operational cost are possible, such as Skylon. Unfortunately, the Orion / Aries approach is not designed to meet these goals, and will never achieve meaningful increases in flight rates.
Even tiny sums of investment and tiny prizes have stimulated technologies like electromagnetic rail launch (pioneered with a grass roots donation campaign, which funded research spanning decades, by the Space Studies Institute) and tether climbers for space elevators. Even a well-funded, focused R&D effort might not bring an Earth to orbit space elevator for a long time, but without the effort it will certainly take longer. A fascinating intermediate step would be a space elevator from the lunar surface to lunar orbit. No atmosphere or weather to contend with, shorter elevator system and smaller gravity well. The payoff would be dramatic reductions in fuel mass required to sustain a base on the lunar surface -- a huge multiplier effect.
Spending on research like this takes place on Earth. The benefits would be substantial. Now is the right time to start.
It can be helpful to look at some actual data once in a while, calming, even. The problem is big, yes, but the historical record shows that the USA was able to reduce it's total national debt as a percentage of GDP, consistently since World War II, with the notable exceptions of the years of Reagan, Bush, and Son of Bush. This was done by growing the economy. It could be done again. One of the best ways to stimulate that kind of massive economic growth would be to use space exploration and alternate energy as a replacement for the military research and development, which drove much of this growth during the Cold War. USA National Debt as Percentage of GDP. If we choose not to do something like this, the debt will be crushing, yes.
It's going to be hard to hold anybody accountable if we can't even talk about this honestly. Take the article summary for example. The appropriate term here isn't "apparent consensus" it's "manufactured consensus brought to us by [corporate sponsors here]".
Oh, I think it's certainly possible for private industry to fund this. However, I think it's highly unlikely. You can discount all the funding that's going into sub-orbital flights. That's a separate "vomit comet" tourism industry which isn't really helping to advance the technologies required for space access, and are not designed to do so, despite the marketing hype. That appears to be about half the billion dollars a year. The companies actually trying to get to orbit are part of a long series of under-funded efforts. Most of those companies are trying to develop systems which reduce costs slightly below the Delta and Atlas levels, and are not trying to significantly advance the state of the art.
Your arguments have prompted me to realize something else, however. The amount of venture capital available to fund stuff like this has clearly increased over the past 50 years. As the economy continues to grow, the funding required to build a launch system, expressed as a percentage of GDP declines. It might well be the case that it's "inevitable" as some say that private industry will pave the road to space. I'm still convinced that this can be accelerated by a more intelligent government involvement. NASA unfortunately has a long track record of screwing this up. (They've done other things well.)
At first glance it might seem that the VentureStar would have been more complex than the shuttle, but that's a mistaken impression. The X-33 program to build a scale flight demonstration unit was funded at less than $US1999 1.5 Billion. For that price, an impressive set of technologies were developed and tested, and they were all quite successful, with the notorious exception of the carbon fiber cryogenic Liquid Hydrogen tank. The vehicle design was actually quite a bit simpler than the Shuttle from many important perspectives. The flight article was very nearly compete. The program would have come in under $2 Billion even if it had been up-funded to replace the carbon fiber tank with aluminum-lithium. The original estimates for the VentureStar were in the neighborhood of $US (1999) 6 Billion to build 4 VentureStar vehicles.
Engineers from the project claimed that NASA directed the carbon fiber tank exploration in X-33, over the objections of the engineers. (This should sound familiar. This type of bureaucratic snafu created problems on the Shuttle program.) The program goals could have been achieved with a (low-risk) aluminum-lithium tank, apparently. Furthermore, Lockheed Martin funded additional R&D on the carbon fiber tanks after the cancellation of the X-33. Although the technology wasn't quite ready at the time the X-33 was cancelled, it was relatively close at hand, certainly as compared to long range projects like scramjets. X-33: What Really Happened.
Yes, it is also truly amazing how many such efforts exist. However, the history of this industry has been one of under-funded efforts which drag on as paper studies and modest R&D technology explorations, which then fold.
list of private space launch efforts
btw... fascinating details on the funding history of this project, thanks.
Regular readers of my comments will know that I'm highly critical of NASA. However, it's important for enthusiastic supporters of space exploration to understand that private industry, left to its own devices, is not likely (is, in fact, extremely unlikely) to fund the R&D required to build the next generation of space transportation system. Getting to LEO is a big, big project. Much bigger than the trans-continental railways. Private corporations do not have the vision required for long term investment on this scale. They have quarterly numbers to meet, impatient and risk averse investors and managers.
The entire global investment in privately funded launch programs, if combined into a single program, is probably still a bit shy of appropriate funding for a single modern system, say, the Skylon program.
What we need is rational, visionary, intelligent and consistent policy, with consistent and rational funding to back it up. Governments, funding the next generation of launch systems required to get to orbit more reliably and more cheaply (through agencies like NASA, or maybe DARPA) will need to be involved.
But they need to be directed and funded to do the job, and do it with the right goals in mind. The X-33 VentureStar program had the right goals and the right plan for reaching them. (Skylon's goals are similar.) Private industry (Lockheed Martin) was instrumental in helping to define those goals, by the way. The original long range plan for the X-33 program involved a privately operated fleet of launch vehicles, VentureStar. NASA's role was to fund initial risk reduction (technology development) in the X-33 program, and probably subsidize the initial construction of the vehicle fleet at some level (through guaranteed purchases of payload delivery).
X-33 Venture Star (discussion archive in which X-33 engineers participated)
X-33 Venture Star (more archived discussion)
A smart approach would be to fund development of both Skylon (about 12.5 tons to LEO) and X-33/VentureStar (about 25 tons to LEO). The systems are designed to fit different parts of the launch market. They should be developed jointly, so they can use common subsystems, such as compatible payload support for example. The combined systems would begin to create a private launch market, with a much more flexible delivery of payload to space.
Cash for Clunkers was originally funded at $US 1 Billion. Congress is negotiating this week to add an additional $US 2 Billion to the program. The original intent of the program was to stimulate the auto industry, encourage consumers to buy more fuel efficient cars, while removing older less efficient cars from the roads permanently. Key provisions of the program were compromised during its initial passing, which result in only slight gains with respect to carbon emissions, particularly when the carbon cost of producing the new vehicle is accounted for.
Three billion bucks would have purchased a revived X-33 program, starting over from scratch if necessary. Since the technology developed for the X-33 is still around, it's likely that $3 Billion would get you through the complete construction and flight testing of the X-33, and then started building the first full scale VentureStar vehicle. They would probably cost about $1 Billion each, if you built four or five. We should plan to build these like airplanes. Build one set or "block" of maybe 2 or 3 craft, then do a round of design improvements, retool and build a second block of improved vehicles, say 7 or 8, for a total of 10 vehicles in the fleet.
X-33 / VentureStar : What Really Happened
VentureStar
This would make sense, if the goal were to actually build a more reliable and less expensive access to space. Unfortunately, NASA continues to optimize for unfathomable bureaucratic goals, and misguided attempts to recapture perceived glory of Apollo.
This is yet another Stupid NASA Trick. Are they serious? At this level of funding, which wouldn't even pay for the airlock on the Orion capsule, a private contractor is going to "bridge the gap" that NASA created? If NASA hadn't killed promising R&D programs like the X-33 (VentureStar), we would already have replaced the Shuttle with a system which reduced flight costs substantially, improved safety and reliability, has shorter turn-around times, and can fly more often. Which, by the way, is what is needed to help stimulate a growing space economy. It all depends on reduced cost of, and increased reliability of access to orbit. Constellation isn't going to provide that. COTS, (and this new bit, given a new name to keep 'em guessing) are funded at levels so low as to guarantee NASA will never face competition from the private companies which win these bids. This is not a joke, it's a charade.
If the objective were to create a private market for access to space, NASA could do this easily. All they need to do is announce that they will buy payload to LEO delivery services from the private market, at market rates. Right now market rates for a single launch of a modest payload are higher than the total size of this program.
NASA probably spent more than this on artwork and publicity for Contellation / Orion / Aeries.
The best way to eliminate waste and inefficiency on large projects like planes and rockets would be to make it illegal or better yet impossible, for Congress to gerrymander the sub-projects and manufacturing plans. NASA struggles to get funding support in Congress. NASA works with its primary contractors to "solve" that problem by dividing contracts up along artificial lines and spreading parts out to every Congressional district possible. This is not really the fault of Lockheed Martin (et. al.) but the fault of Congress. Left to their own devices, Lockheed Martin would rather build, say, something like the X-33 / Venture Star system, by optimizing for efficient production, rather than maximizing the number of sub-projects deployed to the maximum number of Congressional districts.
These dude had enormous backing from governments.
Actually what happened was that the Bush administration directed NASA to focus on a new mission -- returning to the Moon, and sending Astronauts to Mars (and also directed NASA to retire the shuttle) -- but did not provide NASA with the additional promised funding. NASA, therefore, in order to try to meet those mission goals within the projected funding levels, decided to retire ISS earlier than originally planned. I hope that the new administration fixes this problem. ISS is a marvelous research platform, and if we de-orbit it in 2016, we're going to wind up needing to build another one at a later time.
No, not really. The technology in the White Knight / Virgin system is impressive, but they are not really paving the way to orbit, and they're not really trying to do that. They identified a market for sub-orbital trips with a really marvelous view, and they're trying to fill that market need. The Virgin system is a commercial successor to NASA's "Vomit Comet.
The X-33 / VentureStar program was paving the way to cheaper, more reliable, more frequent access to space. This was a well thought out R&D program with a realistic technology development path. If you want cheaper access to space, this is the right way to start.
There's also the proposed Skylon system. It shares some of the general approach to reducing flight costs (standardized payload integration for example) but is based on a different engine technology, a hybrid, hydrogen powered, jet and rocket engine.
It's likely that both types of systems could be developed, for less than the cost of continuing to fly systems based on custom integrated payloads on vertical rocket stacks launched from 1960s era launch pads. Either of the systems would be dramatically more flexible than the various fleets of rockets we currently support or are building: Atlas, Delta, Aeries I.
The planned Aeries V rocket would provide a single-payload lift capability much higher than either the planned X-33-derived VentureStar or the Skylon system and could carry physically larger payloads. That might be useful, if the payload needs are infrequent, and high value (you're willing to tolerate $500 million per flight launch costs). Otherwise, the VentureStar design should scale up nicely to a larger vehicle, once the first generation has been flying a while.
Who let the Mr. Wolfram have mod points? Didn't expect that.
Nobody can remember the moronic URL to his data processing service anyway, so it doesn't matter what he claims. Does the Pope shit in the woods when a tree falls and nobody hears him spanking his monkey with one hand? Probably not.