Ars Technica reports on an American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics forum in Salt Lake City with the provocative title, "Launch Vehicle Reusability: Holy Grail, Chasing Our Tail, or Somewhere in Between?"
Moderator Dan Dumbacher said of the panel, "We purposefully tried to get a good cross-section of those who have been working on it." However, the panel included no one actually building reusable rockets and relied heavily on the old-guard perspective. Dumbacher himself, now a professor at Purdue University, previously managed development of the Space Launch System rocket for NASA, and he expressed doubt about the viability of reusable launch vehicles in 2014 by essentially saying that because NASA couldn't do it, it was difficult to see how others could.
[...] The panel featured three men tied to the reusable but costly space shuttle in one way or another. Gary Payton, a visiting professor at the United States Air Force Academy, is a former shuttle astronaut. Doug Bradley is chief engineer of advanced space & launch at Aerojet Rocketdyne, which built the shuttle's reusable engines. And Ben Goldberg is director of technology at Orbital ATK, which manufactured the shuttle's solid rocket boosters.
The discussion was predictably negative, even dismissive. (Think tones of IBM, Honeywell, Burroughs, Amdahl, DEC when a couple of punks debuted a new "computer" at a Homebrew Computer Club meeting in Menlo Park.) But, reality happens...
So where were the representatives of the new space companies actually building reusable launch systems in 2016 and flying them into space? Dumbacher addressed that question more than halfway through the two-hour discussion: SpaceX, Blue Origin, and Virgin Galactic were all invited, but "unfortunately were unable to attend due to other commitments." Perhaps instead of debating the question, they're just getting on with the job.[emphasis added]
(Score: 2) by n1 on Thursday July 28 2016, @10:30AM
To draw any parallels between what the steves where doing in the 70's in computers with what people like Musk, Bezos and Branson are doing these days with space travel is just wrong.
in 1970whenever Apple wasn't a couple of punks working on a computer, who also had several billion in government contracts/grants/subsidies and a handful of multi-billion dollar internationally successful commercial ventures.
Although this is the type of write-up i'd imagine Musk loves, as he does seem to want to be the next Job's, but with bigger ambitions, his cult of personality as being a techno visionary seems to be building nicely. Too busy getting shit done and being a techonomics jesus to have time to respond in a measured way to any criticism or just time to reflect on mistakes or disappointing customers and other investors who don't have the name Elon.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by aiwarrior on Thursday July 28 2016, @11:25AM
Completely agree.
I think there is credit to give to Musk, no doubt. The problem is that people are now creating a mythos that is simply not true, the one of the garage company. These (Bezos and Musk) were already very very rich people with huge experience in business. Even dismissing the fact they were already very successful persons, also dismissing prior institutions like NASA and it's role in funding and contracts for the business part is just plain idiot and idolatry.
I really prefer the mythological Jesus/Budda/Mohamed that probably didn't actually exist than the creation of new demi-gods. One is based purely on faith, the other is based on biasing and misinterpretation of data.
I am just a bit sad that nowadays people don't use critical thought to achieve balanced perceptions of reality. The world would be fairer.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 28 2016, @11:23AM
for trying something new, and their many launch/landing successes. Whether the approach makes money remains to be seen. But I also wouldn't put much stock in criticism from these old farts.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 28 2016, @11:58AM
Respect your elders, you owe them a lot. They did it first and you are building on their achievements.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by rondon on Thursday July 28 2016, @12:39PM
I have no respect for elders who claim they "did it first." The honest truth is they just did it before I did, but not before their fathers and elders, who they likely didn't respect either.
I do, however, respect those who try to pass on their wisdom instead of pooh-poohing everything those youngsters are doing whilst yelling at clouds. I have learned more from wise people than I have discovered on my own, that is for sure.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by rts008 on Thursday July 28 2016, @02:54PM
Well said.
It illustrates the difference between a good teacher, and someone who teaches for a living.(yes, there is some overlap, but also much polarity)
A good teacher takes pride in their students that 'surpass' them, while the other declares that same trait as 'disruptive, and questioning authority, it must be quashed.
If the younger ones never questioned their elders, we would still be nomadic hunter-gatherers, bashing stuff with sticks and stones...not having this discussion online about reuse of spacecraft components.
And this coming from an elder...now get off my lawn! My Geritol hasn't kicked in yet, and I need to take my nap. :-)
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday July 28 2016, @06:58PM
There is an important lesson that SpaceX should learn.
When you set out to do something bold, innovative and challenging. Something that you, yourself, are not even sure can be made to work. The risk is high. The task is difficult.
The important point is that you might possibly fail.
Therefore, you should not ever try. Ever. Just don't bother.
This message brought to you by SpaceX's competitors.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 4, Touché) by Dunbal on Thursday July 28 2016, @11:45AM
It's like the time I created a forum entitled "Ensuring Prosperity in a Changing World" and invited the G-20 world leaders and no one bothered to show up.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Thursday July 28 2016, @01:10PM
The market is bifurcating.
Theres a market of getting stuff into orbit cheaply and safe enough and theres the previously exclusively dominant jobs program of having at least one contract in every congressmans district while avoiding all risk with a theme park of we're gonna go to space, err not really but we're gonna burn shitloads of money LARPing and sometimes almost accidentally accomplish something. Previously the job program market was utterly dominant, but the "real space companies" are growing like crazy and are pretty successful. So thats the top down way to see marketplace divergence.
For a bottom up view, look at how each groups metrics are not just widely different but don't even make sense to the other group, like trying to usefully compare the metrics for organic tofu to the metrics for helicopter rotor bearings. For example the jobs program can be seen on "this week in nasa" press releases where success is defined by having the politician leader of the org who's probably never differentiated an equation in his life or earned a buck outside government "service" visit with congressmen at grand openings of new facilities and new contract signing in various congressional districts. Meanwhile the excitedly reported metrics for the real space companies are all this obscure Isp figure of merit for various engine nozzles and $/Kg into LEO and stuff like that which the jobs program doesn't really care about externally.
So sure, if you're running a jobs program making a big deal about dropping capex is idiotic for them to pursue, the purpose of the jobs program is to give jobs so ideally every piece of hardware is vaporized or on the bottom of the ocean because that maximizes jobs. Meanwhile its the guys running real space businesses have no motivation to throw profit away by destroying valuable boosters. The scrap value alone of a booster is interesting to contemplate. Fuel is cheap, metal is expensive, and R+D hours are staggeringly expensive, so throwing away some fuel to get a literal mountain of slightly used metal is viable...
Note that both separate markets NEED each other. The jobs program is ineffective but sometimes they have goals to reach that requires actual success so contracting out is going to increase over time. The real space company needs someone to do outreach and PR on a very large scale and be utterly ineffective to provide the pitiful baseline for them to excel beyond, also the jobs program pukes cash everywhere and sometimes they need a little dough.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by gman003 on Thursday July 28 2016, @04:19PM
Even if you assume that reusable orbital launch vehicles are a dead end, Falcon 9 is a better single-use launch vehicle than anything else in its size class. A single-use Falcon 9 is cheaper than an Ariane 5, an Atlas V, or a Delta IV Heavy; less toxic than a Proton-M; and more proven than an Angara A5. SpaceX could never re-fly a rocket and they would still be beating out all the Western rocket companies on price and launch cadence.
As for Blue Origin, they're apparently doing good enough work that ULA is willing to outsource their new (single-use) rocket's engine design to them. So by ULA's own actions they have shown that they think Blue Origin is more competent than they are.
(Score: 4, Touché) by tibman on Thursday July 28 2016, @04:21PM
I often hear people say "it's impossible" at my work. What they really mean is that it will be difficult. They are too lazy to do it, or too scared to risk failure, or are playing politics (because they don't want said thing to happen).
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday July 28 2016, @07:01PM
Maybe the word they should use is Infeasible, or Not Cost Effective.
There are plenty of times I want to say Impossible, but I think about what would it really take, explain it, and see if the costs change anyone's mind. Or see if they have a more efficient plan to make it happen.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday July 28 2016, @07:31PM
I'm actively campaigning to get priorities reshuffled to get us out of a project which not impossible, but so f-ed up and resource-hogging that the "wasted opportunities" list is getting truly scary.
They obsess about the dollars that are highly likely if we spend another 3 to 6 months on it, instead of selling the high-demand features we could be releasing in a much shorter timeframe.
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Thursday July 28 2016, @08:03PM
That's the best way to go about it.
Impossible = I can't be arsed to do it at the moment. Bother me 10 more times about this same thing I've already told you is impossible over the next couple months.
Will take 3 years of dedicated effort, at least 2 new hires, and nothing I'm currently doing on a daily basis will get done so make that 3 new hires = Ready, willing, and on board, boss! Just give the word!
My favorite is “Why can't it just work and be easy, like Google?” If I'm feeling generous I'll point them in the direction of one of these [wikipedia.org] and let Google give them sticker shock for me.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Thursday July 28 2016, @08:23PM
"What was the Sherlock Holmes principle? 'Once you have discounted the impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
I reject that entirely. The impossible often has a kind of integrity to it which the merely improbable lacks. How often have you been presented with an apparently rational explanation of something that works in all respects other than one, which is just that it is hopelessly improbable? Your instinct is to say 'Yes, but he or she simply wouldn't do that.'
- Dirk Gently