> NASA's early arguments that the Shuttle would reduce launch costs were predicated on a much greaterlaunch ratethan was ever achieved in reality. A bit more on that: I think all of us here think highly of the High Frontier studies done by O'Neill and others back in the 70's. But one cringe-inducing aspect of it istoday reading thecalculation that High Frontier could be supported byone Shuttle launch a month, which was a good thing because that meant only one Shuttle orbiter out of the fleet would need to be dedicated to the task, leaving the other orbiters free for other purposes. Obviously the assumption underlying that assertion was a Shuttle thundering up out of Kennedy every week. Lest we castigate O'Neill for such a grandiose notion, he was simply taking NASA at its word. That might seem naive in hindsight, but we should remember that at that time NASA was known chiefly for one thing: saying they would land a man on the moon before the 60's were out, and then making good on the promise.
Mike Combs
Yah, it really was an amazing accomplishment. Just
goes to show what a bunch of dedicated engineers can
do when they have enough money tossed their way.
ruin any good idea, given that it might get someone
elected, which is exactly what happened when Tricky
Dicky decided to gut the "Democrats" great vision.
I fear O'Nielle was an optimist. Ah well, so am I,,,
GAry 7
> > NASA's early arguments that the Shuttle would
> reduce launch costs were
> predicated on a much greater launch rate than was
> ever achieved in
> reality.
>
> A bit more on that: I think all of us here think
> highly of the High
> Frontier studies done by O'Neill and others back in
> the 70's. But one
> cringe-inducing aspect of it is today reading the
> calculation that High
> Frontier could be supported by one Shuttle launch a
> month, which was a
> good thing because that meant only one Shuttle
> orbiter out of the fleet
> would need to be dedicated to the task, leaving the
> other orbiters free
> for other purposes. Obviously the assumption
> underlying that assertion
> was a Shuttle thundering up out of Kennedy every
> week.
>
> Lest we castigate O'Neill for such a grandiose
> notion, he was simply
> taking NASA at its word. That might seem naive in
> hindsight, but we
> should remember that at that time NASA was known
> chiefly for one thing:
> saying they would land a man on the moon before the
> 60's were out, and
> then making good on the promise.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike Combs
>
8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
> The only thing O'Nielle forgot was that politics can
> ruin any good idea, given that it might get someone
> elected, which is exactly what happened when Tricky
> Dicky decided to gut the "Democrats" great vision.
While we can probably agree that Nixon was less-than-nice (I found the revelation that he had refused to allow the carrier John F. Kennedy to pick up the Apollo 11 crew particularly galling), I don't think he was entirely to blame for what happened to NASA after Apollo. The plain simple fact of the matter is that the American people no longer cared. Like any politician, he merely responded to the public trend. We can be grateful that by approving the Shuttle, he at leastdeclined to eliminate the manned space programentirely.
Mike Combs
Message
A good reason not to trust anynew launch responsibilities to NASA, don't you think?
216.622.8344
MWallach@...
NASAs avowed purpose is research and exploration,
something they've done pretty darn well.
research and development, with the accent on
development.
That seems best done by a commercial interest in
space, which is the major way we have of deciding if
something is worth doing at all, ie, is this
investment worth my effort?
Return on investment is how we keep score. The
POTENTIAL returns on space development are so
enourmous as to boggle the mind of Midas, but
convincing people to invest their hard earned cash is
really hard,,,but, it can be done,,,
Gary 7
>
> A good reason not to trust any new launch
> responsibilities to NASA,
> don't you think?
>
> http://mm1.lettermark.net/calfee/card/PKDL_8.map>
>
> This electronic mail transmission may contain
> confidential and legally
> privileged information from the law firm of Calfee,
> Halter & Griswold
> LLP intended only for the use of the individual(s)
> identified as
> addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient,
> you are hereby
> notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution
> or the taking of any
> action in reliance on the contents of this
> electronic mail transmission
> is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
> transmission in error,
> please notify me by telephone immediately. Nothing
> contained herein or
> in any attachment hereto is intended to be used, or
> can be used, to
> avoid penalties imposed under the Internal Revenue
> Code.
>
> [mailto:ssi_list@... On
> Behalf Of Combs, Mike
>
> > NASA's early arguments that the Shuttle would
> reduce launch costs were
> predicated on a much greater launch rate than was
> ever achieved in
> reality.
>
> A bit more on that: I think all of us here think
> highly of the High
> Frontier studies done by O'Neill and others back in
> the 70's. But one
> cringe-inducing aspect of it is today reading the
> calculation that High
> Frontier could be supported by one Shuttle launch a
> month, which was a
> good thing because that meant only one Shuttle
> orbiter out of the fleet
> would need to be dedicated to the task, leaving the
> other orbiters free
> for other purposes. Obviously the assumption
> underlying that assertion
> was a Shuttle thundering up out of Kennedy every
> week.
>
> Lest we castigate O'Neill for such a grandiose
> notion, he was simply
> taking NASA at its word. That might seem naive in
> hindsight, but we
> should remember that at that time NASA was known
> chiefly for one thing:
> saying they would land a man on the moon before the
> 60's were out, and
> then making good on the promise.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike Combs
>
Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
I guess I can accept that reality Mike, I just have a
negative bias toward Nixon.
negator of the High Frontier. I was so excited by the
space race, I thought it would mean I could expect to
really go to space myself. Now it appears I won't make
that trip in my current incarnation,,,bummer,,,
Ah well, I guess all I can hope for is that humanity
will EVENTUALLY succeed in this endevor,,,
GAry 7
> It's really bugged me that he seemed the principal
> negator of the High Frontier.
I think there were two principle negators of High Frontier:
1. The Shuttle not living up to its initialpromise, which meant that the original costs estimates and schedules were too optimistic.
2. The sudden resumption of cheap oil from the Middle East, which undercut SPS which was the principle economic foundation for High Frontier.
Now, any current causes for optimism on these two fronts? Consider:
1. There is a plethora of new space companies working onspacecraft for tourist applications. While these vehicles are suborbital, they might advance to orbital in gradual increments, bringing airliner-like development and operations to spacecraft for the first time in aviation history.
2. In addition to concerns about enrichingnations which support terrorism, we're also increasingly concerned about greenhouse gas emissions. SPS is the only potential replacement for fossil fuels which doesn't have an attendant waste disposal problem.
Regards,
Mike Combs
> 2. In
> addition to concerns about enriching nations which support terrorism,
> we're also increasingly concerned about greenhouse gas emissions.
> SPS is the only potential replacement for fossil fuels which doesn't
> have an attendant waste disposal problem.
proton-Boron fusion can be made to work, then this would produce
abundant energy with no radioactivity (the only outputs are helium and
electricity).
This is unlike the tokamak approach to fusion, which does indeed
produce radioactive wastes (though ones with a much shorter half-life
than the waste from typical fission reactors).
I've long been a skeptic of fusion, and I'm still a skeptic about the
tokamak approach. But I'm cautiously optimistic about Bussard's new
approach (see references below). We shouldn't despair about this,
either -- if this form of fusion works, it can be used to produce
rocket engines thousands of times more powerful and efficient than
anything we have today, and would so dramatically reduce launch costs
and in-space transit times that I suspect the solar system would open
up to us almost overnight.
Keep your eye on this technology -- it's still unknown who is going to
pick it up and run with it, and how. But I think someone will. The
next step is to wait for the technical paper Bussard is preparing,
which will lay down all the theory and experimental results. Then I
imagine we'll see other groups (such as the U. of Wisconson folks)
attempting to reproduce his results. And if his results are confirmed,
somebody will step in and aggressively pursue it -- and I bet it will
be a company, rather than the government, that will be first to the
punch. Of course all this is speculation, but that's my guess.
Best,
- Joe
Video of Bussard's talk at Google:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid96321846673788606
Transcript of Bussard talk at Google:
http://www.askmar.com/ConferenceNotes/Should%20Google%20Go%20Nuclear.pdf
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike Combs
>
Joe Strout -- joe@...
Message
And the difference between this idea and SPS is that SPS does not require any technologies that have not already been developed, although of course further R & D will be needed to make SPS operational.
216.622.8344
MWallach@...
Hash: SHA1
However...
>2. In addition to concerns about enriching nations which support
>terrorism, we're also increasingly concerned about greenhouse gas
>emissions. SPS is the only potential replacement for fossil fuels which
>doesn't have an attendant waste disposal problem.
Be careful. I think that these kinds of non-market considerations are
exactly the kind of top-down calculated-instead-of-discovered-price
thinking that has sidelined what might have been the space development
business for the last few decades. Sell people more of what they want to
buy *now*, not what you *think* they'll buy in the future, or, worse, what
you think they "should" buy, especially if the proposed hair-shirt in
question is supposed to be "good" for them.
Mrs. Smith didn't raise her son Adam to be no fool, and all that. Count on
enlightened self-interest -- hell, pure self-interest -- to guide you at
all times, and let time wound any invisible "externality" heels as they
manifest themselves.
For instance, what always drives technological innovation in aviation is
not slipping the surly bounds of earth, but cheaper coach fare to Cleveland
- -- and mo' better bombs in the laps of the bad guys.
We already have airliners that can do 'teen-hour-plus death-marches to most
of the globe (747/777, various Airbussen), and soon we'll have commercial
airliners that will do non-stop geodesic, but still-death-march transport
from any point on the globe to any another (787s to start). Anybody who can
do the same faster for roughly the same money is always going to do better
than anyone who doesn't. And, to malaprop a famous space-activist, you're
only half-an-orbit to anywhere...
So, creep, crawl, walk, run.
Remember that commercial aviation, all the way back to the Wright Flyer,
started as a quasi-circus attraction, with barnstormers buzzing small
towns, wowing the "rubes" with a loop and a roll or three, and taking
various "worthies" up for a ride in exchange for cold, hard, cash.
It's ugly, but it does have precedence, and, apparently, it works. :-).
Cheers,
RAH
Who remembers also that government regulations, at the beginning of World
War I, required that all military aeroplanes must fly as straight and
level, with as few banks, climbs and dives as possible at all times, and
certainly no loops, rolls, or other such frivolous nonsense. That worked
just fine until people started shooting...
Version: PGP Desktop 9.0.6 (Build 6060)
iQA/AwUBRfBMR8PxH8jf3ohaEQKcdQCg0kUPk5AYllEehttDxOmqQneTI2wAnRtC
/VDgG+Jbe3tdJ7er+VGQbuE6
=Hc6T
R. A. Hettinga rah@...
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation http://www.ibuc.com/>
44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
> Be careful. I think that these kinds of non-market considerations are
> exactly the kind of top-down calculated-instead- of-discovered- price
> thinking that has sidelined what might have been the space development
> business for the last few decades. You're right of course. All of the Middle-East arguments and environmental arguments in the world wouldn't equal the significance of SPS underselling fossil fuels by a penny a kW. Unless... If the economic effects of global warming were precisely calculable (not trying to argue they are, mind you),some people would advocate a "carbon tax" being levied against use of fossil fuels. That might not fly politically, but if such a situation did come about, SPS might become competitive with fossil fuels at least a little bit sooner than otherwise. Similarly, I think if the costs ofwaste disposal and reactor decommissioning were to be fairly factored into theprice of nuclear energy, it toowould face difficulty competing with SPS. An unfair strike against SPS is that all of its costs are up front and obvious. Some of the costs of continuing to use fossil fuels and nuclear power are hidden.
Mike Combs
>precisely calculable
:-)
Seriously, prices are discovered, not calculated.
As for "hidden costs", externalities in the trade, there's always my
favorite Hayek quote on the subject:
"Externalities are the last refuge of the derigistes*." -- Friedrich Hayek
One can always imagine costs, but most of those you can imagine are
incalculable, at best, and, at worst, your calculations produce
un-heh-imaginable results.
:-)
Cheers,
RAH
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirigisme>
R. A. Hettinga rah@...
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation http://www.ibuc.com/>
44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike Combs
>
That might seem naive in hindsight, but we should remember that at that
time NASA was known chiefly for one thing: saying they would land a man
on the moon before the 60's were out, and then making good on the
promise
making the Moon Landing happen. Mostly more of their propanganda.
glb
>I was there. In reality NASA had a relatively minor role in actually
>making the Moon Landing happen. Mostly more of their propanganda.
microprocessors. And Tang. And the, heh, space pen.
:-)
Cheers,
RAH
R. A. Hettinga rah@...
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation http://www.ibuc.com/>
44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
Fascinating. I read the entire excerpt. Looks very
intriguing. I hope they can find the money to build
the WB 7 and 8.
>
> > 2. In
> > addition to concerns about enriching nations which
> support terrorism,
> > we're also increasingly concerned about
> greenhouse gas emissions.
> > SPS is the only potential replacement for fossil
> fuels which doesn't
> > have an attendant waste disposal problem.
>
> Not the only one -- if Bussard's recently revealed
> approach to
> proton-Boron fusion can be made to work, then this
> would produce
> abundant energy with no radioactivity (the only
> outputs are helium and
> electricity).
>
> This is unlike the tokamak approach to fusion, which
> does indeed
> produce radioactive wastes (though ones with a much
> shorter half-life
> than the waste from typical fission reactors).
>
> I've long been a skeptic of fusion, and I'm still a
> skeptic about the
> tokamak approach. But I'm cautiously optimistic
> about Bussard's new
> approach (see references below). We shouldn't
> despair about this,
> either -- if this form of fusion works, it can be
> used to produce
> rocket engines thousands of times more powerful and
> efficient than
> anything we have today, and would so dramatically
> reduce launch costs
> and in-space transit times that I suspect the solar
> system would open
> up to us almost overnight.
>
> Keep your eye on this technology -- it's still
> unknown who is going to
> pick it up and run with it, and how. But I think
> someone will. The
> next step is to wait for the technical paper Bussard
> is preparing,
> which will lay down all the theory and experimental
> results. Then I
> imagine we'll see other groups (such as the U. of
> Wisconson folks)
> attempting to reproduce his results. And if his
> results are confirmed,
> somebody will step in and aggressively pursue it --
> and I bet it will
> be a company, rather than the government, that will
> be first to the
> punch. Of course all this is speculation, but
> that's my guess.
>
> Best,
> - Joe
>
> Video of Bussard's talk at Google:
>
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid96321846673788606
>
> Transcript of Bussard talk at Google:
>
http://www.askmar.com/ConferenceNotes/Should%20Google%20Go%20Nuclear.pdf
I watched the entire presentation. He is a very interesting and
compelling speaker. He knows what he is talking about. Does not come
across as has having any kookiness. In fact he comes across and being
down right grounded in reality, political and physics. It is a sad
commentary on our scientific community that every comment he made is
absolutely true. There is no better way to kill an idea then to bring
it to the attention of somebody who's paycheck is threatened by it. I am
ready to write a check for the little bit that I can get out of my
spouse's clutches for pet projects. We need a support Dr. Bussard
foundation!
http://www.gigadial.net/public/station/11253?page=1&station_id253>
that is supposed to have some updated information which I have
downloaded and will listen to tomorrow.
Also Tom Ligon (who worked on this as a low level employee) posted some
interesting comments to
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=5560&start=31&posts=37>.
Note: The download of Dr. Bussard's presentation from Google stopped at
least three times. You can make it continue by remembering the time
mark at which it stopped, clicking the "reload current page" button and
moving the slider to the time mark and letting it continue.
Mitchell James
> I was there. In reality NASA had a relatively minor role in actually
> making the Moon Landing happen. Mostly more of their propanganda.
Regards,
Mike Combs
> Note: The download of Dr. Bussard's presentation from Google stopped
> at least three times.
didn't stop once. Since then, many of those of us who have seen it
have been telling others about it (and posting on blogs, newsgroups,
etc.). I wonder if it's stopping for you because so many people are
now trying to watch it at once. I can hope, anyway! :)
Best,
- Joe
Joe Strout -- joe@...
Bussard is not the only one with an alternative fusion project. Eric
Lerner's Focus Fusion,
recently received additional funding and is conducting experiments in
Chile.
Further funding depends on reaching "proof-of-concept" levels by Jan.
2008. We should know by then if Focus Fusion has a chance of working.
If Lerner or Bussard can pull this off, it will spur research into
other alternative fusion methods.
> Bussard is not the only one with an alternative fusion project.
success. I'm skeptical of the "Focus Fusion" project, but hey, maybe
I'm wrong. For something this important, it's certainly worth a bit of
funding to try, and I'd be happy to eat my words. Either one would be
a great advance for civilization.
Best,
- Joe
Joe Strout -- joe@...
Looked at the focus fusion site and "explanations".
Gary 7
> Bussard is not the only one with an alternative
> fusion project. Eric
> Lerner's Focus Fusion,
>
> http://focusfusion.org
>
> recently received additional funding and is
> conducting experiments in
> Chile.
>
> Further funding depends on reaching
> "proof-of-concept" levels by Jan.
> 2008. We should know by then if Focus Fusion has a
> chance of working.
>
> If Lerner or Bussard can pull this off, it will spur
> research into
> other alternative fusion methods.
>
Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
Message
I would add a couple of comments to Mike's analysis. The decision to abandon SPS funding in the federal government, as described in the book Sun Power, was a political decision driven by the oil, gas and coal interests, not just a reflection of lowered oil prices. A number of administrations share the blame for that decision. As for the current energy situation, the one big factor Mike doesn't mention is the rapidly increasing competition for energy resources on our planet, led by the explosive growth of the Chinese and Indian economies. More energy is going to have to come from someplace--it's our job to make sure that SPS is that place.
216.622.8344
MWallach@...
> Lest we castigate O'Neill for such a grandiose notion, he was simply
> taking NASA at its word. That might seem naive in hindsight, but we
> should remember that at that time NASA was known chiefly for one
> thing: saying they would land a man on the moon before the 60's were
> out, and then making good on the promise.
anything other than some evil force for evil evilness will get you in
trouble with some people.