Media Casualties Mount
Administration Split On Europe Invasion
Administration In Crisis Over Burgeoning Quagmire
Congress Concerned About Diversion From War On Japan
Pot, Kettle On Line Two...
Allies Seize Paris
Gore Book Sales Tank, Supporters Claim Unfair Tactics
Satan Files Lack Of Defamation Suit
Why This Blog Bores People With Space Stuff
A New Beginning
My Hit Parade
Instapundit (Glenn Reynolds)
James Lileks Bleats
Winds Of Change (Joe Katzman)
Little Green Footballs (Charles Johnson)
Eject Eject Eject (Bill Whittle)
Alan Boyle (MSNBC)
Space Politics (Jeff Foust)
Space Transport News (Clark Lindsey)
NASA Space Flight
A Voyage To Arcturus (Jay Manifold)
Dispatches From The Final Frontier (Michael Belfiore)
Personal Spaceflight (Jeff Foust)
The Flame Trench (Florida Today)
Rocket Forge (Michael Mealing)
COTS Watch (Michael Mealing)
Curmudgeon's Corner (Mark Whittington)
Tales of the Heliosphere
Out Of The Cradle
Space For Commerce (Brian Dunbar)
The Speculist (Phil Bowermaster)
Spacecraft (Chris Hall)
Space Pragmatism (Dan Schrimpsher)
Eternal Golden Braid (Fred Kiesche)
Carried Away (Dan Schmelzer)
Laughing Wolf (C. Blake Powers)
Chair Force Engineer (Air Force Procurement)
JesusPhreaks (Scott Bell)
Nanobot (Howard Lovy)
Lagniappe (Derek Lowe)
Geek Press (Paul Hsieh)
Redwood Dragon (Dave Trowbridge)
Turned Up To Eleven (Paul Orwin)
Cowlix (Wes Cowley)
Quark Soup (Dave Appell)
Assymetrical Information (Jane Galt and Mindles H. Dreck)
Marginal Revolution (Tyler Cowen et al)
Man Without Qualities (Robert Musil)
Knowledge Problem (Lynne Kiesling)
Cut On The Bias (Susanna Cornett)
The Funny Pages
Cox & Forkum
Day By Day
Happy Fun Pundit
Amish Tech Support (Lawrence Simon)
Scrapple Face (Scott Ott)
Quasipundit (Adragna & Vehrs)
England's Sword (Iain Murray)
Daily Pundit (Bill Quick)
Daimnation! (Damian Penny)
Z+ Blog (Andrew Zolli)
The Kolkata Libertarian
Midwest Conservative Journal
Protein Wisdom (Jeff Goldstein et al)
Dean's World (Dean Esmay)
Yippee-Ki-Yay (Kevin McGehee)
Spleenville (Andrea Harris)
Random Jottings (John Weidner)
On the Third Hand (Kathy Kinsley, Bellicose Woman)
Inappropriate Response (Moira Breen)
Inadvertent Comic Relief
Warblogger Watcher (Cowardly Anonymous Idiotarians)
Other Worthy Weblogs
Ain't No Bad Dude (Brian Linse)
A libertarian reads the papers
Anna Franco Review
Ben Kepple's Daily Rant
Dropscan (Shiloh Bucher)
End the War on Freedom
Insolvent Republic of Blogistan
James Reuben Haney
Mind over what matters
Page Fault Interrupt
Sand In The Gears(Anthony Woodlief)
The Blogs of War
The Fly Bottle
The Illuminated Donkey
What she really thinks
Where HipHop & Libertarianism Meet
Zem : blog
Space Policy Links
The Space Review
The Space Show
Space Frontier Foundation
Space Policy Digest BBS
USS Clueless (Steven Den Beste)
Unremitting Verse (Will Warren)
World View (Brink Lindsay)
The Last Page
More Than Zero (Andrew Hofer)
Pathetic Earthlings (Andrew Lloyd)
Spaceship Summer (Derek Lyons)
The New Space Age (Rob Wilson)
Rocketman (Mark Oakley)
Site designed by
Where There's A Will
I don't have much time to write, but fortunately some of my readers do.
Mitchell Burnside Clapp, of Pioneer Rocketplane, has been commenting on spacesuit gloves in the previous post, but he also passes along some comments, via email, about how much smarter we are now than we were in the sixties.
I was thinking recently about NASA and its desire to invest heavily in new technologies to develop better launch vehicles. I know this is worthy work and that NASA's charter requires them to do a fair bit of this sort of thing, but I can't help be reminded of the kids who spend a hundred bucks on top of the line basketball shoes in the hopes that it will give them game.
You get game by doing the work. You get it by doing a hundred thousand free throws. You get it by running your legs into jelly until you can drive the lane. You get it by doing something other than layups at practice because anyone can make those shots and you don't always get them in real games. You get it by trying and failing and trying and failing and repeating the process until the ball goes swish, every single time.Posted by Rand Simberg at February 18, 2004 12:42 PM
I absolutely agree. Government programs will always be a part of space, but it will never go very far if they are the focus. One of my biggest complaints with NASA is that they throw money away on projects that go nowhere instead of things that could make space pay - like researching reusable, reliable efficient rocket designs that could be turned over to business for further development - parts instead of whole ship designs. Or zero g materials research for space manufacturing. IF there was reliable launch service, and IF there was proved space manufacturing for advanced semiconductors, there would be a huge market right there. And I have little doubt something would turn up like that if the research was done.
On tech versus capability - there was some idiot on the History channel who said "The ancient Egyptians didn't have the technology to build the Pyramids. Something we don't understand yet must have been used." (He was implying aliens.)
In other words, less technology = stupid. Just because they didn't have our machines this fool assumed they were too stupid to build pyramids. Just as we couldn't go to the moon in the '60s. Right.Posted by VR at February 18, 2004 04:09 PM
A lot of people would support a more focused effort into space exploration and migration. The old cliche... "where there's a will, there's a way" comes to mind, but the will as expressed above is more than just a desire.
Does the will truly exist?
What happened to those people in the 60's? Oh? I guess my question answers itself.
Amen, Mitch. At _this_ rocket shop, we like to say, "first make it work, then make it work better." If we can't afford the fancy software, we'll kludge up a classical analysis, maybe in a spreadsheet. If we're not confident in the third decimal of the heat transfer (hell, sometimes the first!) we'll build a test article, run it, and see if it melts....
Yoda had it wrong, though. In order to do, you have to try (and fail a few times) first. Enough of this, anyway, I'm running an engine test in a few hours, have some fiddly bits to complete.Posted by Doug Jones at February 19, 2004 07:21 AM
Some years ago I visited the museum in Roswell, NM. The Goddard exhibit was being re done so alot of signage was missing. In one case with various nozzles were several turbines made of chewing tobacco container lids. As you said the important thing is to first make it work. Poverty can be the mother of inventionPosted by bruce at February 19, 2004 10:08 AM
Inspirational, but it's delusional to think there's 'nothing instrinsically expensive about reaching space.' The fact is that building a machine complex enough to pull itself out of the gravity well is tough to do no matter who you are. Certainly private industry has the management and necessity to get it done cheaper than government--but not orders of magnitude so. This has been evidenced in multiple fields of endeavor prior to the advent of space transportation, and there's no miracle technology government is ignoring that will make space an exception until long after CATS is the norm.
Space is expensive with current efforts because it is nearly impossible to do with current technology anyway. No amount of hand-wringing or non-government financing will make it much cheaper until technology has advanced enough to make the aspects that are currently difficult and expensive cheap and reliable.
That being said, the only way to advance such technology in a consistent fashion is via CATS--but it will be CATS at a comparable cost to current government efforts, not a significantly lower cost. That's reality.Posted by Tom Merkle at February 20, 2004 10:31 PM
Tom, with all due respect... What a crock! It's engineering and physics... the reason it's expensive is politics and lack of vision.
F=MA, you need thrust. You need structure that doesn't crush. You need staging, until we get better ways of generating thrust (which exist but are politically infeasible.) You need minimal guidance.
My 13yo son can build a rocket. Give him an engineering degree and a CAD system and he could build one to visit any destination in the solar system.
Perhaps what it needs are Russian's and Chinese because if we can't find the will and vision to do it, perhaps some other humans can carry the torch.
Go ahead and call me delusional, but you'll be eating your words in 2 or 3 decades.Posted by ken anthony at February 22, 2004 10:53 AM
"...complaints with NASA is that they throw money away on projects..."
It's not just government agencies. When business gets too big the same thing happens. Years ago I worked for a fortune 500 manufacturer. They bought a half million dollar milling machine but ordered it with modifications. The thing sat on the shop floor for years, taking up space and never getting used. This type of thing is repeated over and over in large corporations.
My bet is that the big names in space are going to come from some of those ten person companies in Mojave and similar places.Posted by ken anthony at February 22, 2004 12:21 PM
Please provide the technology that is supposed to be ?nearly impossible? to build. I?m not aware of any. In my poor delusional mind, the primary issues are (1) current rockets are only single use or mostly single use for a relatively small number of launches, instead of reusable, reliable designs used for a large number of launches (2) the primary technology base for most currently used systems dates back to the ?60s and ?70s with token improvements, and (3) operations are run by an army of workers. Take away the army of workers, stop replacing or rebuilding all the hardware, but leave fuel costs alone, and the price goes down orders of magnitude. The problem is operational, not technological.Posted by VR at February 22, 2004 11:27 PM
No argument on companies wasting money. The only real difference is that companies that waste too much money collapse, change their business, or are bought out by smarter companies. The government just raises taxes or borrows more money and keeps doing the same thing. Look at Amtrack ? every few years, Congress critters threaten to shut it down for exactly the same reasons, and it never happens. I also agree that the big aerospace companies aren?t going to be the ones to innovate, but not just because they are big ? they are too tightly locked in with the current space programs. But don?t be surprised if Boeing copies some innovative company after they prove the market, like IBM did with the Apple II.Posted by VR at February 22, 2004 11:38 PM
Post a comment