You forgot about the part where lowering costs actually costs money - if it costs $80 million to reduce your costs $10 million (which is in the ballpark), then there is little to no incentive to reduce costs because you'll likely never recoup your investment. (Likely never because of the uncertainty of government contracting and the low flight rate.)
Even in the commercial world, where there is a great deal of pressure to reduce costs via competition, the same calculations take place. Prices only drop when then potential profit exceeds the investment.
Even so Musk will have a very hard time reducing his prices any great deal - he's already picked all the low hanging fruit.
If SpaceX was a gov contactor similar to Boeing/L-Mart/Ratheon, I would agree with you. OTH, Musk is pushing for PRIVATE space and using the federal contracts as a spring board (similar to how he used F1 to springboard to the F9).
If he had used government contracts, as opposed to goverment grants and loans, for the F1... you'd have a point.
The market is also radically different in that there actually is a private market for the Tesla, and there isn't for the Dragon and may or may not be in the reasonably near term. (Modulo Bigelow getting his act together.) He can push all he wants - but it's dollars that make the difference, not 'pushing'.
Well, that's true... But it's not the route to cheap commercial spaceflight as a government contractor has limited incentive to lower costs - especially once he's got lock in.
There are some good reasons why they are potentially safer than some ohter designs though. For example, the fact that the engines are runup and develop full thrust while the vehicle is still tied down, and can be shut down if they do not perform to spec removes a large slice of hazard.
Applying best practices widely in use on other vehicles for decades makes them 'safer'?
Many people have raised the non-issue of lack of bureaucracy somehow making their efforts less safe.
Given the trends so far (though granting that even by the abysmal standards of rocket science there is only a small sample) - I wouldn't exactly be praising SpaceX as paragons of safety just yet.
I think that SpaceX are really in business of making affordable LEO deliveries.
And Pets.com was really in the business of selling fifty pound bag of dog food over the internet back before they collapsed as part of the dot bomb. "Really being in the business" of something doesn't equate to being successful at that business. Right now SpaceX is burning through venture capital and government contract money - they're a long, long, way from being profitable.
inspecting and replacing ablated ceramic is one of the reasons why the Shuttle takes months to turn around
While damaged or loose tiles are replaced - there is no such thing as an 'ablated' tile on the Shuttle.
Replacing the ablated nitrogen is as simply as putting a hose in the tank after the craft lands
That's true - but only half (or less) of the story as there is more to the system than than just the nitrogen. You also have to consider maintenance on the valves and piping (which the shuttle does not require) and you'll also require detailed inspection/repair/replacement of the heat shield components (just like the Shuttle).
So after figuring in the need for the shield to be able to operate sans nitrogen (in the event of a failure in the valve system), the bulky and heavy tanks and piping, the bulky and heavy LN2 itself, the specialized 'porous' heat shield, etc... etc... it's not at all clear this will end up cheaper and lighter than the Shuttle, let alone whether a practical craft can be built.
+4 Interesting? This not only isn't interesting - it's utter and complete innumerate and ill educated hogwash.
The Shuttle cannot 'turn back' once it reaches orbit (thus avoiding Russian radars). It can 'turn back' in the atmosphere (shortly after launch), but in that event it gets nowhere near orbit and thus cannot snag a satellite.
What the USAF wanted the Shuttle to do was do a 'one orbit' launch out of Vandenburg, inspect or grab a Soviet satellite, and then landing again in US territory. The problem is that the Earth's rotation moves California to the east by a thousand miles or so - which meant the Shuttle would be landing in the ocean. The solution was to use aerodynamic flight during re-entry to maneuver to the east. So the USAF required that NASA enlarge it's existing wing to accommodate this in exchange for the USAF's political support.
Even though the mission was never flown, that has more to do with the inability to open and the close the bay doors fast enough, as well as accomplishing other tasks, to shift modes between launch -> orbit -> re-entry than anything else.
As a side note, this USAF requirement had less of an impact than urban legend would like to believe. NASA was already enlarging the wings to add cross range capability for safety reasons. More cross range means landing windows (at the recovery sites) are longer and occur more often, makes certain abort scenarios easier (notable Trans Atlantic Abort), and increases the availability of emergency fields.
Caltech does just fine building MSL, without all that much help from NASA other than signing checks.
Signing the checks, providing mission direction, providing design support and reviews, keeping the budget in check, keeping the plans from growing too grandiose, providing contract support, coordinating launch and DSN services, etc... etc...
Caltech/JPL builds some damn fine hardware and runs some damn fine missions - but you're a fool if you believe that all NASA does is 'sign the checks'.
Not just it's huge popularity - but it's moderator pool drawn from it's huge registered userbase. Larger, I suspect, than any but the largest of national daily newspapers - think the LA Times, NY Times, the Washington Post...
But that doesn't prevent trolling, it just moderates them below the average users viewing threshhold. (Browse at -1 sometimes, it's eye opening.)
Not long after, when they'd recovered the front section, I recall reading that they had found that the environmental controls had been altered after the break-up and before colliding with the ocean (hence the conclusion by NASA that the explosion had been survived by at least one of the crew).
I've participated in several discussions on that issue and the conclusion invariably that this was almost certainly reflexive actions on the part of the crew as a result of their emergency training. However, the actions likely had zero useful effect as it's almost certain the cabin was completely depressurized (and the crew unconscious) with a few seconds of the breakup. On top of this, the cabin was tumbling wildly, so there would have been no way for them to unstrap and use any form of escape system.
Regardless, you are absolutely correct in saying that this is a great piece of equipment to have.
It wouldn't have been useful in a Challenger type of accident without considerable extra equipment to ensure the crew retained consciousness, the cabin remained stable, etc... etc... And even then, it's only useful in a fairly narrow band of altitudes - that the Shuttle blasts through in a matter of a minute or less.
Nor is it useful in a Columbia style accident due to the extreme difficulty of exiting the cabin into the air blast and aerodynamic heating that would be encountered. (Or as an expert of my acquaintance put it "they [the balloon jumpers] are stepping off of their front porch, the Columbia crew were stepping out of a F1 racer at full speed".) If you supposed the existence of some kind of escape capsule to bring astronauts down to 100kft, and then having them jump - you've built something far heavier and more complex than a capsule they can simply ride all the way down.
In short, this is a solution in search of a problem. It's an impressive stunt, but it's relationship to space safety is nil.
The other possibility to consider is what happens if any future manned mission is stranded in space, with damage too great for repairs and no possibility of rescue within the time the capsule or whatever can remain in orbit.
They die, it's really just as simple as that. I've been in that situation (for an accumulated total of over a year), where a minor malfunction could lead to death far from rescue, and it didn't bother me. Didn't bother any of the professionals I knew. We'd prefer not to die of course, but that doesn't stop us from going anyway.
The ability to descend safely would only require that the vehicle decelerate sufficiently.
The problem is that decelerating sufficiently [for an astronaut to survive jumping out at 100kft] means decelerating at a much faster rate than designed, which means a much heavier heat shield. And if your heat shield can stand *that*, then it's in good enough shape to ride all the way down like normal.
In short, this is a solution looking for a problem.
But the thing is - once you've built all that kit, it no longer makes any sense to ever abandon it for the risks of a personal parachute jump. Just ride the parachutes that have slowed the vehicle down all the way to the ground.
I can't help but feel that the reason why the "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" debate has continued to rage, outside Texas and the other retarded US states which deny Darwin, has a lot to do with arguments like this one.
And only the logic deficient and the religious crazies are left arguing the options.
Well, that says more about your bias and your own lack of education than anything else - since question of this form go back to the ancient Greek philosophers. There's much more to it than your simpleminded literal reading.
If you had a shuttle launch where tiles were damaged and there wasn't a standby shuttle able to get them and the repairs couldn't be done in space, what do you do with the people?
They die. It's really just as simple as that.
In short, if it works at 100,000 feet, it may work at higher altitudes. And if not, 100,000 feet has plenty in common with the ISS orbit such that it shouldn't be hard to extrapolate.
ROTFLMAO.
Somebody re-entering from orbit is still going over a thousand miles an hour at 100kft. The guys jumping from the ballon are going zero miles an hour - the situations are precisely nothing like each other.
Wihch would you rather have: a big hole in your shuttle heat shield and no chance of surviving, or a big hole in your shuttle heat shield
Been there done that. I've got somewhere over a year accumulated where a relatively small casualty could place me beyond rescue and certain of death - didn't bother me any. Doesn't bother any professional.
Because while you can probably spare a few hundred kilos for emergency survival
More like a couple of tonnes - but that doesn't matter because you can't spare even a few hundred kilograms for survival equipment that's unlikely to ever be used.
But you're assuming a capsule which does not exist
No, I'm assuming that if we build an escape system, it'll be rationally designed.
I presume this is intended for a MOOSE-style system which would be an emergency means of escaping from the shuttle or a similar vehicle
Other than the fact that the type of casualty which would lead to the need for this kind of escape system is such a far fetched edge case that you might as well stock holy water, garlic, and a gun with silver bullets as well...
And in that case, once you've inflated your heat-shield and it's brought you down to 100,000 feet it's a liability you're safer without.
Yeah, something that's protected you from heat and air blast is such a liability - you'll abandon it so we can face the heat and air blast without it. Or, IOW, horseshit. At that altitude and speed dropping your existing protection is stupid because you aren't done re-entering. Again, the size, weight, and complexity of a parachute system that will slow you down sufficiently that it isn't a stupid idea to get out at 100,000 feet is far greater than a system that will let you get out at 30,000 feet.
However, re-entry is largely a solved problem, whereas high-altitude parachuting isn't.
However, as pointed out by the grandparent, high altitude parachuting is a solution in search of a problem.
If we had a need for an emergency system to bring astronauts down to 100,000 feet
We'd slap ourselves on the forehead and design the emergency system to bring them down to 30,000 feet, or more likely all the way to the ground. 100,00 feet is a stupid altitude to leave an emergency capsule since you're too high and will still be going too fast. (In terms of that perennial Slashdot favorite the automobile analogy: this is like equipping a car with airbags - that only function when the car is going 100MPH or faster.)
By the time you've built the complex parachute system required to slow down enough to safely exit that capsule at 100,000 feet, you haven't saved any weight or volume over the lighter and simpler (because you can design the capsule to slow down via drag, taking away work from the parachute system.) system to slow down the capsule enough to exit at 30,000 feet, in fact it will be heavier and bulkier. (Look at all the fancy tricks NASA has to employ for landing on Mars - a much simpler task than getting out at 100,000 feet.) All you need to add to get from 100,000 to 30,000 feet, once you've got a capsule that can descend to 100,000 feet, is a few ounces of compressed O2 for the few extra minutes the astronaut will be breathing in the capsule - O2 he'll need in his suit anyway if he's parachuting independently.
And you've gotten to 30,000 feet - there's no particular reason to leave the safety of the capsule for the complexity and risk of ejecting or otherwise departing the capsule for a parachute jump. Might as well come all the way to the surface.
"They're doing what NASA no longer has the balls to do."
It's not like an astronaut will be stepping out of a spacecraft at 100kft, he'll be burnt to a crisp and mangled by the air blast as his craft will still have considerable speed at that altitude.
If he's doing a personal (individual) recovery as suggested by another poster, then the astronaut will be riding in a small capsule and parachutes for slowing down small capsules are a long solved problem.
In short, with regards to space safety, this is pretty much a meaningless stunt as it has nothing in common with any but the most far fetched of scenarios.
Provably with regards to, for example, accident statistics. Which was the point of, I don't know, the gggp or so.
I understood his point. You don't seem to have understood mine.
For practicalities and economics, I again think that case is made by the success of competitor's designs.
Given than accelerator and braking problems go back to when computers started getting authority over those functions back in the 80's, and continue to have today (I.E. not just Toyota)... you haven't a fucking clue what you're talking about.
It may always be possible to design it better, but it will not always be possible to design it provably better. I'd only require you to reach the limit of provably before discounting the remaining difference without calling them flaws.
Except you have only claimed it possible to 'provably' design it better, you have yet to demonstrate that it can be 'provably' designed better. There is a difference between the two. You haven't even defined better in any useful terms
And even so, 'provably' better still does not mean that design is more practical or economical than the existing one.
Also the trollish moron invokes ad hominem attacks, while the brave and thoughtfully reasoning man makes actual arguments.
Since I have not invoked an ad hominem attack, and you haven't advanced an actual argument... I'm not sure what your point is.
It's a design flaw precisely because it is demonstrably possible to design it better.
It's always possible to design it better. It's not always practical or sensible, therefore the design cannot be considered flawed as it is more than suited for intended purpose. The wise man recognizes the difference. The idiot shouts "it's flawed, it's flawed" in the false belief that this makes him sound wise.
If you design a device that is not properly operated by 1 in 100,000 people leading to severe injury or death, AND YOUR COMPETITORS HAVE NO SUCH PROBLEM, your users may be stupid, but it's still a design flaw.
Why is it a design flaw? Seriously.
You can't design out all edge cases, nor can you provide an infinite series of '9's. In the real world, its ridiculous to expect either.
Slashdot Mirror
You forgot about the part where lowering costs actually costs money - if it costs $80 million to reduce your costs $10 million (which is in the ballpark), then there is little to no incentive to reduce costs because you'll likely never recoup your investment. (Likely never because of the uncertainty of government contracting and the low flight rate.)
Even in the commercial world, where there is a great deal of pressure to reduce costs via competition, the same calculations take place. Prices only drop when then potential profit exceeds the investment.
Even so Musk will have a very hard time reducing his prices any great deal - he's already picked all the low hanging fruit.
If he had used government contracts, as opposed to goverment grants and loans, for the F1... you'd have a point.
The market is also radically different in that there actually is a private market for the Tesla, and there isn't for the Dragon and may or may not be in the reasonably near term. (Modulo Bigelow getting his act together.) He can push all he wants - but it's dollars that make the difference, not 'pushing'.
There is - but for cooling, hydraulics, etc... not heat shielding. And any Shuttle type replacement will require the same piping systems.
So what I'm doing here is comparing like-to-like, the Shuttle's heat shielding system to this test vehicles heat shielding system.
You'll note I specified LN2 - liquid nitrogen. You'll also note that N2 != O2.
It's interesting how the truth gets moderated as trolling.
Well, that's true... But it's not the route to cheap commercial spaceflight as a government contractor has limited incentive to lower costs - especially once he's got lock in.
Applying best practices widely in use on other vehicles for decades makes them 'safer'?
Given the trends so far (though granting that even by the abysmal standards of rocket science there is only a small sample) - I wouldn't exactly be praising SpaceX as paragons of safety just yet.
And Pets.com was really in the business of selling fifty pound bag of dog food over the internet back before they collapsed as part of the dot bomb. "Really being in the business" of something doesn't equate to being successful at that business. Right now SpaceX is burning through venture capital and government contract money - they're a long, long, way from being profitable.
While damaged or loose tiles are replaced - there is no such thing as an 'ablated' tile on the Shuttle.
That's true - but only half (or less) of the story as there is more to the system than than just the nitrogen. You also have to consider maintenance on the valves and piping (which the shuttle does not require) and you'll also require detailed inspection/repair/replacement of the heat shield components (just like the Shuttle).
So after figuring in the need for the shield to be able to operate sans nitrogen (in the event of a failure in the valve system), the bulky and heavy tanks and piping, the bulky and heavy LN2 itself, the specialized 'porous' heat shield, etc... etc... it's not at all clear this will end up cheaper and lighter than the Shuttle, let alone whether a practical craft can be built.
+4 Interesting? This not only isn't interesting - it's utter and complete innumerate and ill educated hogwash.
The Shuttle cannot 'turn back' once it reaches orbit (thus avoiding Russian radars). It can 'turn back' in the atmosphere (shortly after launch), but in that event it gets nowhere near orbit and thus cannot snag a satellite.
What the USAF wanted the Shuttle to do was do a 'one orbit' launch out of Vandenburg, inspect or grab a Soviet satellite, and then landing again in US territory. The problem is that the Earth's rotation moves California to the east by a thousand miles or so - which meant the Shuttle would be landing in the ocean. The solution was to use aerodynamic flight during re-entry to maneuver to the east. So the USAF required that NASA enlarge it's existing wing to accommodate this in exchange for the USAF's political support.
Even though the mission was never flown, that has more to do with the inability to open and the close the bay doors fast enough, as well as accomplishing other tasks, to shift modes between launch -> orbit -> re-entry than anything else.
As a side note, this USAF requirement had less of an impact than urban legend would like to believe. NASA was already enlarging the wings to add cross range capability for safety reasons. More cross range means landing windows (at the recovery sites) are longer and occur more often, makes certain abort scenarios easier (notable Trans Atlantic Abort), and increases the availability of emergency fields.
Signing the checks, providing mission direction, providing design support and reviews, keeping the budget in check, keeping the plans from growing too grandiose, providing contract support, coordinating launch and DSN services, etc... etc...
Caltech/JPL builds some damn fine hardware and runs some damn fine missions - but you're a fool if you believe that all NASA does is 'sign the checks'.
Not just it's huge popularity - but it's moderator pool drawn from it's huge registered userbase. Larger, I suspect, than any but the largest of national daily newspapers - think the LA Times, NY Times, the Washington Post...
But that doesn't prevent trolling, it just moderates them below the average users viewing threshhold. (Browse at -1 sometimes, it's eye opening.)
I've participated in several discussions on that issue and the conclusion invariably that this was almost certainly reflexive actions on the part of the crew as a result of their emergency training. However, the actions likely had zero useful effect as it's almost certain the cabin was completely depressurized (and the crew unconscious) with a few seconds of the breakup. On top of this, the cabin was tumbling wildly, so there would have been no way for them to unstrap and use any form of escape system.
It wouldn't have been useful in a Challenger type of accident without considerable extra equipment to ensure the crew retained consciousness, the cabin remained stable, etc... etc... And even then, it's only useful in a fairly narrow band of altitudes - that the Shuttle blasts through in a matter of a minute or less.
Nor is it useful in a Columbia style accident due to the extreme difficulty of exiting the cabin into the air blast and aerodynamic heating that would be encountered. (Or as an expert of my acquaintance put it "they [the balloon jumpers] are stepping off of their front porch, the Columbia crew were stepping out of a F1 racer at full speed".) If you supposed the existence of some kind of escape capsule to bring astronauts down to 100kft, and then having them jump - you've built something far heavier and more complex than a capsule they can simply ride all the way down.
In short, this is a solution in search of a problem. It's an impressive stunt, but it's relationship to space safety is nil.
They die, it's really just as simple as that. I've been in that situation (for an accumulated total of over a year), where a minor malfunction could lead to death far from rescue, and it didn't bother me. Didn't bother any of the professionals I knew. We'd prefer not to die of course, but that doesn't stop us from going anyway.
The problem is that decelerating sufficiently [for an astronaut to survive jumping out at 100kft] means decelerating at a much faster rate than designed, which means a much heavier heat shield. And if your heat shield can stand *that*, then it's in good enough shape to ride all the way down like normal.
In short, this is a solution looking for a problem.
But the thing is - once you've built all that kit, it no longer makes any sense to ever abandon it for the risks of a personal parachute jump. Just ride the parachutes that have slowed the vehicle down all the way to the ground.
Well, that says more about your bias and your own lack of education than anything else - since question of this form go back to the ancient Greek philosophers. There's much more to it than your simpleminded literal reading.
No fresh water, no agriculture, no habitation.
They die. It's really just as simple as that.
ROTFLMAO.
Somebody re-entering from orbit is still going over a thousand miles an hour at 100kft. The guys jumping from the ballon are going zero miles an hour - the situations are precisely nothing like each other.
Been there done that. I've got somewhere over a year accumulated where a relatively small casualty could place me beyond rescue and certain of death - didn't bother me any. Doesn't bother any professional.
More like a couple of tonnes - but that doesn't matter because you can't spare even a few hundred kilograms for survival equipment that's unlikely to ever be used.
No, I'm assuming that if we build an escape system, it'll be rationally designed.
Other than the fact that the type of casualty which would lead to the need for this kind of escape system is such a far fetched edge case that you might as well stock holy water, garlic, and a gun with silver bullets as well...
Yeah, something that's protected you from heat and air blast is such a liability - you'll abandon it so we can face the heat and air blast without it. Or, IOW, horseshit. At that altitude and speed dropping your existing protection is stupid because you aren't done re-entering. Again, the size, weight, and complexity of a parachute system that will slow you down sufficiently that it isn't a stupid idea to get out at 100,000 feet is far greater than a system that will let you get out at 30,000 feet.
However, as pointed out by the grandparent, high altitude parachuting is a solution in search of a problem.
We'd slap ourselves on the forehead and design the emergency system to bring them down to 30,000 feet, or more likely all the way to the ground. 100,00 feet is a stupid altitude to leave an emergency capsule since you're too high and will still be going too fast. (In terms of that perennial Slashdot favorite the automobile analogy: this is like equipping a car with airbags - that only function when the car is going 100MPH or faster.)
By the time you've built the complex parachute system required to slow down enough to safely exit that capsule at 100,000 feet, you haven't saved any weight or volume over the lighter and simpler (because you can design the capsule to slow down via drag, taking away work from the parachute system.) system to slow down the capsule enough to exit at 30,000 feet, in fact it will be heavier and bulkier. (Look at all the fancy tricks NASA has to employ for landing on Mars - a much simpler task than getting out at 100,000 feet.) All you need to add to get from 100,000 to 30,000 feet, once you've got a capsule that can descend to 100,000 feet, is a few ounces of compressed O2 for the few extra minutes the astronaut will be breathing in the capsule - O2 he'll need in his suit anyway if he's parachuting independently.
And you've gotten to 30,000 feet - there's no particular reason to leave the safety of the capsule for the complexity and risk of ejecting or otherwise departing the capsule for a parachute jump. Might as well come all the way to the surface.
"They're doing what NASA no longer has the balls to do."
It's not like an astronaut will be stepping out of a spacecraft at 100kft, he'll be burnt to a crisp and mangled by the air blast as his craft will still have considerable speed at that altitude.
If he's doing a personal (individual) recovery as suggested by another poster, then the astronaut will be riding in a small capsule and parachutes for slowing down small capsules are a long solved problem.
In short, with regards to space safety, this is pretty much a meaningless stunt as it has nothing in common with any but the most far fetched of scenarios.
I understood his point. You don't seem to have understood mine.
Given than accelerator and braking problems go back to when computers started getting authority over those functions back in the 80's, and continue to have today (I.E. not just Toyota)... you haven't a fucking clue what you're talking about.
Except you have only claimed it possible to 'provably' design it better, you have yet to demonstrate that it can be 'provably' designed better. There is a difference between the two. You haven't even defined better in any useful terms
And even so, 'provably' better still does not mean that design is more practical or economical than the existing one.
Since I have not invoked an ad hominem attack, and you haven't advanced an actual argument... I'm not sure what your point is.
It's always possible to design it better. It's not always practical or sensible, therefore the design cannot be considered flawed as it is more than suited for intended purpose. The wise man recognizes the difference. The idiot shouts "it's flawed, it's flawed" in the false belief that this makes him sound wise.
Why is it a design flaw? Seriously.
You can't design out all edge cases, nor can you provide an infinite series of '9's. In the real world, its ridiculous to expect either.