The Space Industry: An example of why governments fail and freedom prevails.

[Anonymous]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8PlzDgFQMM

Jeff Greason tells us his story:

As a student at Cal-tech...I had known about the O-ring problem that doomed Challenger. A lot of people had and it was no secret. And I remember saying the morning of the accident...that looks like an O-ring but that can't be, they already found that problem. Because it had never occured to me, in my wildest nightmares, that you would of found something like that and not fixed it.

One of my professors was on the accident investigation commitee for Challenger and what he found was that if it weren't the O-rings it would of just been something else. The shuttle was riddled with problems like that and the [government] culture at NASA at that time was not of fixing them, it was of explaining why they weren't that serious.

...that's when I knew no matter how great the accomplishments of NASA had been or would be and no matter how much money that congress gave them or didn't give them, they were never going to put people or people like me into space.
So, getting into space is hard ...but it's not that hard.

He goes onto discussing why people believe achieving common and easy space travel is impossible/impossibly expensive and why it's actually not:

[The cost of space travel] ...is not in the materials. Rockets are built out of aluminum just like airplanes. They're not built out of diamonds. So, where is it?

It's in the labor. It's in the labor to run an assembly-line for a big rocket, we use once, then it's gone; or it's in the people...who [refurbish a rocket piece-by-piece]. This takes about 10,000 people. It takes 3,000 people to run a production line for a rocket.

Now, an airliner [requires the same materials and fuel] a rocket does and it's just as big. And they are actually far more complicated than a rocket is but then we use that airliner 10,000 times during it's...life, at least and we operate it with less than 1/100th people than it takes to operate a rocket.

That's why it takes $100,000,000 [GOVERNMENT] dollars to put a person into orbit on a space shuttle and $100 [Capitalist] dollars to put them on the Boston to New York shuttle.

He goes onto cover safety in comparison to the private inception of basic flight:

Furthermore, as for safety, we've flown people to space less than 500 times... The Wright Brothers [Private] did more than 700 glider flights to get ready for their first powered flight attempted in 1903.

[We're in the very begginings of space travel] That's why I came into the rocket business. Because what we need is not magic. We just need rockets to go through the same competitive improvement process that aircraft have gone through and the technology we are missing is capitalism. That's what has been lacking in the space business. Its what makes everything else work in every arena of modern life.

He goes onto describe how his private space company has reached pinnacles in safe, sound and efficient rocket-based aircraft, bot through stolen funds but through private incentive and desire. In addition, to competition from similar companies.

The rocket business is not the cheapest and easiest way to make money. There is obviously other desires and value out there building this.


He begins the last section of his video with:

The things we had to do to make rockets work really are the same things that make society work: Competition, capitalism and free enterprise....

Most of human history is about the strong few ruling over the poverty-stricken many...[a progressing society] depends on creative destruction. It depends on allowing new ways of doing business to displace the old. It also depends on continously harnessing the creativity of people who may be outside the system...in short, it can't exist for long without freedom and that, in turn, rests upon the belief that life isn't a zero-sum game.

If you believe life is a zero-sum game, then to you it makes sense to defend what you have at all costs because any change must be for the worst, right? It may make sense to you that if you want something, you should go steal it. ...because what difference is there between making it and stealing it if life is a zero-sum game?

I don't believe that for a second.

Life is clearly better now than when I was younger and a study of history shows me that as long as civilization has been around... life has been getting better in measurable terms.

He goes on to describe that a greater future depends on looking to the great beyond. Not restraining ourselves to the status-quo.

Great speech. Great examples of reality.

[1714547534]

1714547534

[1714547534]

1714547534

[1714547534]

1714547534

[onesalt]

Rockets need almost none of the same parts or fuels that a jet airliner needs, or even the same fuel. The reason rockets are difficult to make and are expensive is because of the exotic materials generally needed and the fact that rockets need a thrust to weight ratio of greater than one while carrying their own oxidising agents (for reference, even the most powerful commercial airliners have thrust to weight ratios of less than 0.4, if memory serves, relying on lift to gain altitude, something rockets physically can't do due to air thinning). This means for every kilo of fuel you're gonna need a kilo of oxidiser, essentially, which greatly reduces the fuel efficiency of rocket engines since to achieve the maximum energy output of any particular kilo of fuel it needs to carry another kilo of oxidiser with it.

Saying rockets use aluminium like everything else is also somewhat a lie since currently rockets only use aluminium becuase they are not designed to survive re-entry. If you look at any of the rockets actually designed to survive re-entry such as the return pod of a soyuz or the space shuttle you'd notice they're covered in a whole fuck ton of heat resistant composites, metals, and other fancy materials to survive the intense frictional heating. This is again pretty much why governments are wary about putting people into space. If those tiles get damaged its game over, since spacecraft are generally fail deadly due to the extreme conditions they need to endure, unlike aircraft which have been known to fly with 3 engines missing and holes in the fuselage to no ill effect other than passenger hysteria.

As for the whole "well aircraft don't cost lots of money because they're multiple use!!" that's because there is absolutely no workable single stage to orbit rocket at the moment. It'd be nice if we could jump in a rocket, fly to the moon and back without needing to shed dead weight such as empty fuel tanks but sadly no one has figured out how to. The space shuttle was specifically designed to try and be reusable as possible but still needed SRBs and an external fuel tank, both of which it has to shed during the flight in order to get into space. Rockets have to shed dead weight or as they are now they physically cannot get high enough into space to do anything. It's also completely wrong. Per unit, the Delta IV rocket costs almost half as much as an airbus A380, which is unsurprisingly because they are single use, whereas planes aren't. Hell, even the space shuttle only costs marginally more per launch than an airbus A380 costs to build.

Also for what its worth, his claims about "his private space company has reached pinnacles in safe, sound and efficient rocket-based aircraft" is kind of bogus when you consider that currently that consists of two rocket engines strapped to a commercially bought propeller powered aircraft, and the rocket plane that they have actually built can only reach approximate 70km up, which is far too low for any useful payload such as satalites or otherwise. The successor to that craft is apparantly going to be able to reach orbit! but sadly it's going to be two stage, which defeats the entire purpose of a rocket plane. His company also has one contract from NASA to design a rocket engine for a return stage from mars, something congress is never going to let happen with the US's national debt as it is now

[ascent]

Also, there's a huge market for moving people around the planet. Granted, there's also a huge untapped market for putting stuff in space, but it ain't nowhere near as big as the market for moving people around the planet. And thus, while we certainly have a demand to get stuff into space, it will never be able to take advantage of the economies of scale that are realizable in the airline industry.

[myrkul]

Also, there's a huge market for moving people around the planet. Granted, there's also a huge untapped market for putting stuff in space, but it ain't nowhere near as big as the market for moving people around the planet. And thus, while we certainly have a demand to get stuff into space, it will never be able to take advantage of the economies of scale that are realizable in the airline industry.

Best way ever to be wrong: Say never.

[lemonginger]

It is highly doubtful humans will make it to the moon (or any other planet) again. Too much energy needed, not enough available.

NASA takes a lot on undeserved flack from the right in this country. They did/do pretty amazing stuff.

There's actually an argument to be made that PowerPoint helped cause the Challenger disaster

http://www.edwardtufte.com/tufte/powerpoint

[myrkul]

It is highly doubtful humans will make it to the moon (or any other planet) again. Too much energy needed, not enough available.

Then we are doomed as a species.


Bullshit.

[lemonginger]

We aren't doomed.

But for better or worse, we're intimately connected with this planet, and we don't get to "escape it".

I think that the next 200,000 years of human life on this planet will look more similar to the first 200,000 years, than the last 200 or so. Only with a lot of interesting toys around for an ecotechnic society to build and develop with.

Regardless, I think it's much more likely in 200 years we'll have closer to 1 billion people on earth, than 10 billion.

[Xephan]

Then we are doomed as a species.
Bullshit.

Personally, I think it's quite likely. At some point in the near future there will just be too many people and too little natural resources left. Maybe we would survive as a species but civilisation as it is will not.

[Xephan]

It is highly doubtful humans will make it to the moon (or any other planet) again. Too much energy needed, not enough available.

I think it's almost certain humans will make it to the moon again. The Chinese government and cultural pride almost ensures they will get that done. And they are willing and can afford to write off the lost of a couple astronauts to achieve it.

[lemonginger]

too bad we don't have a bitcoin predictions market for these sorts of speculations

[joulesbeef]

we could have put man on mars instead of playing war in Iraq. In theory it would cost about the same.

[myrkul]

We aren't doomed.

But for better or worse, we're intimately connected with this planet, and we don't get to "escape it".

It is a mathematical certainty that at some point, this planet is toast. Meteor strike, supervolcano, If noting else, The sun will bake the planet clean in about 4 billion years.

If we don't leave the nest, We will die.

[compro01]

Also for what its worth, his claims about "his private space company has reached pinnacles in safe, sound and efficient rocket-based aircraft" is kind of bogus when you consider that currently that consists of two rocket engines strapped to a commercially bought propeller powered aircraft, and the rocket plane that they have actually built can only reach approximate 70km up, which is far too low for any useful payload such as satalites or otherwise. The successor to that craft is apparantly going to be able to reach orbit! but sadly it's going to be two stage, which defeats the entire purpose of a rocket plane. His company also has one contract from NASA to design a rocket engine for a return stage from mars, something congress is never going to let happen with the US's national debt as it is now

you're thinking virgin galactic (makers of spaceshipone and two), which i agree are useless for anything other than rich tourists.

spaceX (the falcon rockets)actually has reached orbit twice.  out of 5 attempts.

they estimate about $4700/kilogram to orbit , but the shuttle had similar estimates early in that project, so i'm somewhat skeptical and will see if that early estimate bears any resemblance to reality after they've been doing regular launches for a few years.

[onesalt]

Also for what its worth, his claims about "his private space company has reached pinnacles in safe, sound and efficient rocket-based aircraft" is kind of bogus when you consider that currently that consists of two rocket engines strapped to a commercially bought propeller powered aircraft, and the rocket plane that they have actually built can only reach approximate 70km up, which is far too low for any useful payload such as satalites or otherwise. The successor to that craft is apparantly going to be able to reach orbit! but sadly it's going to be two stage, which defeats the entire purpose of a rocket plane. His company also has one contract from NASA to design a rocket engine for a return stage from mars, something congress is never going to let happen with the US's national debt as it is now

you're thinking virgin galactic (makers of spaceshipone and two), which i agree are useless for anything other than rich tourists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XCOR_Aerospace
http://www.xcor.com/products/index.html

No, I'm not.

In addition, looking at their engines now, all of them are fucking laughable, using low energy density fuels with relatively terrible oxidisers from a rocket point of view (N20 for example) This guy says he's the fucking pinnacle of rocket technology but looking at their company now it's all bluster and lies.

[Anonymous]

I don't think you all realize that they are gradually testing different technologies with these rockets. Not just boosters and propellants. It takes a lot of proof-of-concepts to convince investors and in the end it builds sounder products.

[onesalt]

I don't think you all realize that they are gradually testing different technologies with these rockets. Not just boosters and propellants. It takes a lot of proof-of-concepts to convince investors and in the end it builds sounder products.

From their site I'm really failing to see anything that hasn't been proposed or done by another company before. Even their fancy spaceplane ideas NASA worked on for years before they cancelled the project due to cuts.

[Rassah]

Someone needs to figure out how to combine a second-stage rocket engine with a first-stage MAGLEV propulsion track. Use cheaper nuclear electric power to accelerate these things to about 2000kmh up the side of a mountain, then let the rockets do the rest.

[Xephan]

Someone needs to figure out how to combine a second-stage rocket engine with a first-stage MAGLEV propulsion track. Use cheaper nuclear electric power to accelerate these things to about 2000kmh up the side of a mountain, then let the rockets do the rest.

One problem I see here is that maglev might work well travelling on level ground/gentle slopes, it might not work at all if it has to fight gravity. The reason maglev trains can move so fast is because the propulsion only needs to fight air drag to move. As it is, it takes a lot of power to get a maglev vehicle up to speed and going up vertically would essentially mean doing that all the way. So it's not likely going to be able to hit 2000km/h, maybe not even anywhere close to the current train speed records.

[Rassah]

Someone needs to figure out how to combine a second-stage rocket engine with a first-stage MAGLEV propulsion track. Use cheaper nuclear electric power to accelerate these things to about 2000kmh up the side of a mountain, then let the rockets do the rest.

One problem I see here is that maglev might work well travelling on level ground/gentle slopes, it might not work at all if it has to fight gravity. The reason maglev trains can move so fast is because the propulsion only needs to fight air drag to move. As it is, it takes a lot of power to get a maglev vehicle up to speed and going up vertically would essentially mean doing that all the way. So it's not likely going to be able to hit 2000km/h, maybe not even anywhere close to the current train speed records.

A dedicated nuclear or hydro plant with a capacitor stack may be enough. Also, the vehicle itself will not be heavy, since it won't have to carry the fuel and rocket shells with it (you'll only be moving the shuttle, not the booster rockets and giant tank).
Worse case, you can just fire the thing out of a tunnel, with a series of gas explosions behind it, like a gas gun. Still way more efficient, since the fuel is still stored on the ground, instead of being launched along with the vehicle.

[myrkul]

Yup. there are Dozens of ways to get into space without carrying rockets up with you. The old, inefficient way is not the only way to do things.