Failure Is Not An Option 69
| Failure Is Not An Option | |
| author | Gene Kranz |
| pages | 415 |
| publisher | Simon & Schuster |
| rating | 9 |
| reviewer | Jason Bennett |
| ISBN | 0-7432-0079-9 |
| summary | The story of the early days of NASA from its most famous flight director. |
The Scenario
Space, the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship "United States of America." Their 10-year mission: to explore strange new satellites; to seek out new knowledge and new challenges; to boldly go where no human has gone before.
Ok, ok, so it's a little trite. Nevertheless, this is the story of the men (and women) who lived John Kennedy's dream of space exploration and conquered the moon. Gene Kranz, for those who didn't see Apollo 13, was one of NASA's main flight controllers. His story extends well before that fateful mission, of course, to the very beginning of the space program. Gene takes us from his days of joining the program through the early Mercury and Gemini missions and on to the moon landing and the end of the Apollo program. Along the way a fascinating story emerges of a team closely united in a common purpose, such as has rarely been seen. That statement might seen overly melodramatic, but the race to the moon, in front of the entire world, remains unique in human history. The details we learn along the way give an amazing amount of insight into the inner workings of the space program: many missions came closer to disaster than I had realized; the loss of Apollo 1 and NASA's subsequent recovery serve as an interesting counterpoint to the post-Challenger era; the aimlessness of NASA after the moon landings that has continued to this day. Krantz' story is a fascinating and inspiring account of a true team that worked tirelessly to reach the unreachable.
What's Good?
I think I've covered that. :-) Gene has a unique perspective and position from which to tell this story, and he does an excellent job. When he didn't remember or witness an event, he went back to his former colleagues at NASA to fill in the details. The storytelling is coherent and understandable. This isn't an engineering book, so there isn't a lot of technical gibberish thrown in. This is, above all, a book about people, and about an organizational effort that any software project would do well to emulate.
What's Bad?
Gene isn't a professional author, and it shows through in places. The cuts and flashbacks are not always in the best places, and sometimes distract the reader from the overall story. The main problem, however, is that the cast of characters is enormous and ever-shifting. A character listing would have been a nice addition, as I had trouble keeping everyone (and their nicknames) straight at times. Neither of these problems was major, though.
I would like to see Gene's perspective on the post-Apollo era. He does editorialize on this at the end, but I would love to see how he handled the post-Challenger time from his management position, and what he tried to do to jump-start NASA. It would be another excellent read.
So What's In It For Me?
It's a cool story, dangit! What more do you want? :-)
Table of Contents
- The Four-Inch Flight
- "Liftoff; the Clock is Running
- "God Speed, John Glenn"
- The Brotherhood
- The Making of a Rocket Man
- Gemini -- The Twins
- White Flight
- The Spirit of 76
- The Angry Alligator
- A Fire on the Pad
- Out of the Ashes
- The X Mission
- The Christmas Story
- 1969 -- The Year of Apollo
- SimSup Wins the Final Round
- We Copy You Down, Eagle
- "What the Hell Was That?"
- The Age of Aquarius
- Coming Home
- Shepard's Return
- What Do You Do After the Moon?
- The Last Liftoff
- Epilogue
- Where They Are
- Acknowledgments
- Appendix: Foundations of Mission Control
- Glossary of Terms
- Index
Buy this book at Fatbrain.
Re:NASA's Aimlessness (Score:1)
Actually, it costs more (even accounting for inflation) pound for pound to launch stuff on the shuttle than it did on a Saturn V. Reusable spacecraft can, in the long run, be cheaper than expendables, but only if they're done right - which shuttle is not.
Al
But wait, there's more! (Score:2)
Re:NASA's Aimlessness (Score:3)
It was a joke, see, played by a hero who had the cojones to sit on a (gasp) Redstone, and who later saddled his butt onto an atom-bomb sized Saturn V. I'm sorry you're offended by his claim of a little personal privilege; a lot of people didn't get it.
Plant a flag?
Damn straight, plant a flag.
Collect rocks? Wow. What a contribution to the human race.
It was a monumental achievement, and it unified the race for a short time. EVERYBODY watched and held their breath. My guess is that you weren't born yet, right? That's too bad -- there has been no similar moment on Earth since then.
(And I wouldn't be so cavalier about discounting the rocks' scientific value if I were you, unless of course you have some credentials in geophysics -- let us know.)
The race to the moon was a political race.
Agreed. But at least for those of us who lived in Florida at the time, the Soviet space effort was perceived as a real threat. The "Cuban missile crisis" was a local event, and in school we would tell our pals that we'd see them tomorrow -- if nothing happened. Don't be so quick to dismiss the military interest in space... the Soviets were ahead, and the US was behind, and the threat was tangible.
[The ISS shows] that we are capable of organizing ourselves as a race to achieve things
Sure - well beyond budget, schedule shot to hell, no controlling authority and no assurance that the partners will uphold their obligations. Lofty sentiments toward "the race" notwithstanding, this is a lousy way to run a business.
IMO one of the tragedies of the last 25 years in space has been the rapprochement arranged between the so-called superpowers. There is no competition anymore, and the heat is off. The Russkis have agreed not to beat the Angliskis to Mars -- hence NOBODY is going.
The PRC is going to launch one day pretty soon. I do love competition.
Re:NASA's Aimlessness (Score:1)
Last I checked, "collecting rocks" from another planet was a pretty useful accomplishment, scientifically speaking. ISTR landing on the moon changed a bunch of our assumptions about it.
Not to mention the challenges in space travel that were resolved by the mission.
Sure, it was a cold ware race, and that's one reason they sent humans and not drones. But it was also an uplifting moment for anyone who cared to share in it. Obviously you don't, and that's a shame. You're missing out.
Re:NASA's Aimlessness (Score:1)
(Ok...NOW I'm not serious, but I was before.)
Re:NASA's Aimlessness (Score:2)
And on a more serious note, mankind should strive it's hardest to reach for the stars, because the sun won't always be here, and then we're kinda screwed if we're still here. It pays to plan ahead.
Re:NASA's Aimlessness (Score:1)
Consider that it was 15 years from the time we started looking toward space until we reached the moon. It's been twice as long since then that we've been to the moon. What have we done since then? Skylab, the Shuttle, and Mir. All good things, but without the drive we once had. Yes, we've lost the political motivations, but I look forward to the Mars race, and having a clear goal in front of us.
Re:Mostly concurr with the review, few remarks (Score:1)
As a non-USian, surely you mean "Aluminium" :-)
Re:Mostly concurr with the review, few remarks (Score:2)
Well, in the best "my pedantry's better than your pedantry" mode, surely you mean Kg, not KG :-)
Re:NASA's Aimlessness (Score:2)
--
Thanks... (Score:2)
... for the review. I bought a copy of this book a few weeks ago to read on my vacation. I'm thinking I made a good choice. Check out G.K.'s web site for excerpts, etc. (Sorry I cannot lay my hands on the URL just now.)
--
Re:NASA's Aimlessness (Score:2)
The ISS is just as much of a political race. It's been scaled down dramatically, $billions over-budget, almost 10 years behind schedule, and most experiments (not all) that'll be performed on it could be performed just as easy, and less expensive, on the shuttle or a satelite. The only reason we're still involving Russia is to infuse needed cash into their defense industry so they don't start selling nukes instead. The technology involved in the ISS is mostly from the 80's, far from cutting edge.
Re:NASA's Aimlessness (Score:2)
You seem to have forgotten the other major project that NASA has been working on: The Mars landings. All of these probes (that keep crashing) are being sent there to explore for a hopeful manned mission. I read somewhere (I think on
Take a deep breath.
There is no timetable. There is no realistic plan for a manned mission. There is, at this writing, no hope of Congress authorizing any funds for one.
The people at NASA would obviously love to be planning one, and they stretch every thin dime they're given in order to sneak in useful research in that direction. But the reality is that Congress has been led to believe that a Mars mission would cost between one and five hundred billion dollars, per proposals presented during the Bush administration, and they're all looking at the next election thinking they'd be lynched for approving it.
The Mars Direct [nw.net] proposals take a different approach, ditching the orbital launching platform, ditching the enormous crew, ditching the orbiter+lander approach that mimics Apollo, forgetting about a three-year journey with six weeks on surface, and achieving all its necessary redundancy in other ways. The budget is a far more realistic FORTY billion, and places skilled human scientists on the Martian surface for an entire year.
But it isn't NASA's plan, and while they've come close (Mars Semi-Direct [marsacademy.com]), they are for all practical purposes enjoined by Congress from spending any taxpayer dollars on any planning for a Mars mission.
They even tried to get authorization for a TransHab module [discovery.com] for ISS that would serve as a proving ground for Mars vehicle and habitat technology, but that was turned down.
----
Re:Gene Kranz. When he talks, geeks listen. (Score:1)
Slashdot Interview? (Score:5)
Re:Mostly concurr with the review, few remarks (Score:1)
Surely you mean I should mean a 2.72*10^6 KG Aluminium tube ?
:-)
Covered elsewhere (Score:2)
This topic is actually covered in the book "Stages to Saturn", by Roger E. Bilstein. As you might guess, it's biased heavily towards development of the Saturn hardware, but it does cover management structure in a great deal of structure.
Some of this element - with more of a leaning towards the "whys" rather than the "whats" - is covered in the excellent "Chariots for Apollo" by Charles R. Pellegrino, Joshua Stoff. This really is development of the Lunar Module (LM) rather than NASA-as-a-whole, but Grumman's story (the developer of the LM), together with the trials and tribulations of dealing with NASA and the other contractors, is told excellently.
Amazon have "Stages to Saturn" listed Here [amazon.com] and "Chariots for Apollo" listed Here [amazon.com]
Mostly concurr with the review, few remarks (Score:3)
By lucky coincidence I finished reading this book last week. I'm having my annual isn't-Apollo-fascinating binge[*].
I mostly agree with the review as-written, certainly with regards to the..um...slickness of the writing. Don't get me wrong - it's a perfectly readable book, however it's not what I'd call professional. Actually, that's a benefit - Gene's personality literally shines through his writing.
In fact, this book could not be written by any other person; no ghost-writer could be this convincing. Gene's attitude, beliefs, values and idiosyncracies are all there in their glory. Just finding out he pumped himself up for a mission by mentally playing back military marches on his way to work was worth the price of admission alone.
This book is almost like reading Gene's confession of his pride for his team and America's accomplishments in the '60s, in space. And that's really my only remark. As a non-USian, non-religious, not-particularly-patriotic soul, it's hard to empathise with some of Gene's values. Doesn't detract from the reading, mind you, but I just don't necessarily "get" Gene's motivations.
As a historical document, however, then when people ask you about the stuff that wasn't on TV during Apollo - i.e. things done by any of the 400,000 people who didn't end up in the pointy end of a 6-million pound Aluminum tube - then point 'em at this book. You might not learn much technically, but the reasons it happened, and how it made those people feel, is all there.
[*] = I've just read the Apollo 11 Mission Reports parts 1 & 2 from, Apogee Books - highly recommended if you like lots of technical detail since they're the pre/post mission reports and crew debriefs). Just have Apollo 13 mission report to read next, after I finish "Darwin's Radio"
I second that and please mod it up! (Score:2)
Re:HEY...THAT'S MR. KRANZ TO YOU!!!! (Score:1)
dave
The scared shitless generation (Score:4)
It's hard to imagine people these days would feel so reticient about burdening other people with their feelings, good or bad. It's one of the qualities of that generation that I like.
Not that it couldn't be done today, but I think that the generation that fought WWII was uniquely suited to produce men and women to succeed in worst case scenarios. I sometimes think of them as the scared shitless generation. They were born into the worst economic dislocation in history. We're talking armies of able bodied men willing and eager to do anything to feed their families not being able to get any kind of work, and being totally at the mercy of their employers when they did. Then they faced the nightmare prospect of several technologically advanced industrial nations hijacked by gangs of ruthless and conquest minded butchers. Then there were endless rounds of cold war with nuclear stakes to be played.
"Failure is not an option" was never said, IIRC, by Gene Krantz, but it could have been a catch phrase for the entire generation. A long the way they made quite a few collosal screw ups (Vietnam, environmental disasters, support for various nasty dictators), but by in large they left a much brighter, freer world than they got.
NASA's Aimlessness (Score:3)
To play golf? Plant a flag? Collect rocks? Wow. What a contribution to the human race.
The race to the moon was a political race. The US government believed that the USSR had scared the crap out of it's citizens by being first into space. They were right. They needed to be able to prove to their own citizens that they could beat those ruskies, and they did. It served it's purpose.
So what are we doing now? The International Space Station. Not only will this serve as an excellent scientific resource and a launching site for other space ventures, it also shows us that we are capable of organizing ourselves as a race to achieve things that are not merely "impossible", but rather are significantly useful.
I have a lot of respect for the people that took the moon shot. I have just as much respect for the scientists and engineers working so hard right now to be useful, without the great motivator of political fear backing them.
Re:NASA's Aimlessness (Score:2)
compacency sucks. (to put it simply)
as you said if there is no challange there's no need to play.
Titus-g: Games free since 1992 & proud of it :)
Re:NASA's Aimlessness (Score:3)
Devil Ducky
It's time to look forward (Score:1)
Everytime I read a review for an Apollo program I think - why are we constantly resting on past accomplishments? This chapter of history has been covered in rich detail in numerous books, documentaries, and even Hollywood movies. I know that the authors of these accounts favor an investment in space. Why then, then, do these chronicles seem so melancholy?
Get off you ass, mankind. Earth - been there done that. Time for something new.
A brief rebuttal (Score:1)
Your closing sentence scares me.
This is intentional hyperbole. My long term argument (looking a few decades into the future) is that confining ourselves to a single planet is a dangerous strategy. Technological advances allow individuals / organizations / countries to affect larger areas and populations. Biotech weapons are a good example. They're currently very expensive and difficult to target, but the costs will dimenish and the control will increase. You can make similar arguments about nuclear weapons. Given that the surface area of the earth is not increasing, getting off the planet may be an essential long term survival strategy.
An extremist may argue that this should justify immediate and overwhelming investment. If migrating into space is our goal, I would only ask how our current spending helps achieve this goal. The X-38 launch program is great because it reduces cost to orbit. NEAR and DS-1 test technologies and may provide commercial incentives. But constantly reviewing Apollo seems counterproductive.
Russia's "Hand-off" on Mars (Score:1)
Remember the Russian shuttle prototype? It's now a children's ride somewhere in Siberia according to a PBS program on the Russian space program I watched a couple of years ago.
China? An interesting possibility, mainly in science fiction so far, but it doesn't seem that they're going for a Cold War-style race for "firsts".
Re:Space travel isn't feasible (Score:1)
"But I wish the US had launced an Orion in the 1960's when the US was still doing atmosphereic tests, just so we knew it was possible."
Small scale models of Orion were launched, using chemical explosions as a proof of concept tests, as told in "The Starship and the Canoe", a biography on F. Dyson and son.
Two things to note however.
1. The Orion system was not conceived as a surface to orbit, but mainly space to space traveling system.
2. Not even Dyson, Orion's creator considers it acceptable to detonate nukes in the atmosphere at this time.
Like it or not, Chem propulsion is what we have. The trick is to use our atmosphere as an advantage instead of a hindrance. The most interesting idea right now for an SSTO is an aircraft like ship that takes off from a runway, and then refueled in flight for a boost to orbit.
It's here or nowhere. (Score:1)
But there is no elsewhere in this case. No Class M planet for us to "escape" to and bypass learning to deal with how we manage our ecospheres.
My rebuttal is this.
Here you are, Mankind it's this place or noplace.
It's becoming increasingly clear that Space is not a very healthy place for the human body, as among other reasons, microgravity is hell for the immune system. Our long-term survival rests upon thinking of Earth as our long-term home. The other planets are either frozen hells, boiling hells, or radioactive frozen, burning hells. And given how improbable a planet like Earth seems to be, it just might be truly unique so don't dis it.
Hear hear (nt) (Score:1)
Re:It's time to look forward (Score:2)
Earth - been there done that. Time for something new.
Sorry my friend, but there is no 'something new', we have no habitable planets we're going to be able to get to, and we're fucking the one we have up the ass with a chainsaw. Gently. :)
Graphic metaphors aside, please consider the option that we should be concentrating on better stewardship of the planet we have, rather than looking into space for salvation. As long as we have a society that guzzles energy in order that we should have WWF Raw Monday nights and plastic toys in your Happy Meal, we're not making any sort of progress.
All this is IMO. But that goes w/o saying.
Re:NASA's Aimlessness (Score:1)
The whole problem is that they don't see the true intrinsic value of manned flight. Instead of lofty goals we get expensive boondoggles in the shuttle which would be better spent on unmanned missions or a manned mission with a worthwhile goal. Shouldn't the Sojourner landing have told NASA something? Right now we're building the most expensive tin can in history to orbit the Earth (IF the Russians don't blow up a critical part on the pad). It's a joke to suggest that this has proportionate scientific value.
When China start manned missions and India put a man on the moon it will really show the world what incredible under accomplishment NASA has been guilty of these last few decades. Hopefully it will prompt some action.
The Challenger disaster and the accompanying Disneyland philosophy that no risk is acceptable for manned flight is equally foolish. Tourists die climbing Everest each year, thousands die in auto accidents, hundreds die in plane crashes fulfilling the most mundane objectives. Historically huge risks have been undertaken by celebrated pioneers of new frontiers. Unfortunately that isn't acceptable for NASA management, they can easily find the few brave souls to shoulder the burden, but instead they are mired in ineffective safety procedures because they have forgotten what it is like to excel. NASA has given up on the dream. Here's a plan to cut costs AND save lives; half the budget for manned space, cut back on the excessive safety and associated bureaucracy and spend the savings on road safety awareness in high schools or on medical equipment at a few hundred hospitals. I only make this point to illustrate how completely imbalanced the pioneering spirit has become at NASA, and it isn't for the want of brave astronauts, it's done for the political careers of their masters. The upshot is that the very people who would volunteer for worthy manned missions get to orbit the Earth in (safe) tin cans instead of doing some real exploration. I think I know what choice they would make given the option.
Re:Russia's "Hand-off" on Mars (Score:1)
Failure is not an option... (Score:1)
Rebuilding a Moon Rocket (Score:1)
As the poster above mentioned, it's the tooling and even more than that, the parts and sub-components of the Saturn V that are no longer made. That's why we couldn't just one day decide to build More Saturn V's - the production line no longer exists, and even if it did, we don't have anything to make them out of.
That's not to say one couldn't decide to take the plans a rebuild the line and re-produce the components. You could do that, but it would be silly.
The Saturn V was a marvel of its time, but it's 40 year old technology.
To tell the truth, a Saturn V is STILL a marvel even today. Go see one sometime at one the NASA centers - I recommend KSC in Florida. The visitor center there is superb. Don't miss the Firing Room show and the Lunar theatre if you want to feel awed and humbled.
It's a real trip to stand under such a monster sized machine and realize people got up on top of one of those things and rode it to the moon!
<rant> And another thing - it's a shame that there are still any Saturn V's still left on Earth for us to marvel at in the museums - they should have all been used up on Apollo's 18-20, but those missions were canceled due to lack of vision by politicians. NASA had already bought and paid for the hardware. A lot of the mock ups and museum pieces of Apollo spacecraft that you see are actually REAL spacecraft (genuine flight articles) from the canceled missions. What collosal short-sightedness!</rant>
If you were going to build a Moon Rocket today, you would want to start with a clean slate and utilize all the advancements of the intervening years in materials, machining techniques, and electronics miniturization.
If you were going to do that, you would start at the top of the stack, the Apollo Spacecraft. The Saturn V's purpose in life was to Boost the Apollo Spacecraft into a parking orbit, then to the Moon. EVERYTHING in Apollo was the way it was because of the spacecraft's weight.
The weight of the CM dictated the weight of the SM, becuase the SM had to carry enough propellant to boost the CM and SM out of Lunar gravity to get home to Earth. The combined weight of the CM, SM, and LM dictated the weight of the S-IV B, becuase it had to boost the Apollo Spacecraft out of Earth's gravity to get to the Moon. Since the S-IV B was the third stage of the Saturn V, the other two stages of the Saturn V also had their design dicated by the stage above.
If you were going to go back to the Moon, you would design a new set of spacecraft, using all the advancements in materials and design of the last 40 years, (a good many of said advancements a by-product of the space program itself - plow the lessons of space back into the exploration of space.)
Once you had the spacecraft, presumably they would not be as heavy as the Apollo craft were(lighter heatshield, lighter computers and instruments, and all that) Becuase your spacecraft are now lighter, you don't need as big of a rocket.
Gene Kranz. When he talks, geeks listen. (Score:1)
Jon Katz. When he talks, geeks listen.
Gene Kranz. Has a wild haircut [genekranz.com].
Jon Katz. Has no hair. [booknotes.org]
Gene Kranz. Is admired and respected by his readers.
Jon Katz. Nope. (lothe is a better word)
Gene Kranz. Has made significant contribution to the advancement of humankind.
Jon Katz. Has made a significant advancement in helping kids find porn on the net.
___
More info at: (Score:3)
___
Re:NASA's Aimlessness (Score:1)
Let's see, from next year's appropriations, in millions...
Space Science Total $2,398.8
Life/Microgravity S&A Total $302.4
Earth Science Total $1,405.8
SPACE STATION $2,114.5
SPACE SHUTTLE $3,165.7
(<pre> would be a nice tag to allow here, Mr. Slash coder...)
So shuttle plus station is getting slightly more than science. I'd prefer more for science, but it's hardly nothing.
Source: American Institute o' Physics [aip.org]
The real story: management structure (Score:5)
Compare this to the modern management structure: basically, do whatever we tell you. It doesn't matter if you should be doing what we hired you for, we want you to do this now. I have this happen to me all the time. I was hired to do a job with a description. However, it quickly became aparent to me that the "other duties as assigned" portion of the job description was much more important than the job I was hired for.
I used to think it was just the management of the company I work for, but after discussing this with some friends, it became clear that this happens everywhere.
The problem with this management style is that it promotes sloppy work. If I thought the job was going to be one thing (that I should like to do -why else would have I applied?), but it becomes something else (that I may not even have training to do), how good am I going to be?
I have also noticed the inverse is true: I work with people who are not doing what they are paid to do, only because they like that job more than their primary duties.
Of couse, there was also a very clear objective and process for meeting that objective.
Not professional? (Score:1)
How is Gene Kranz not a professional author? He wrote a book, it was published, and he was paid for it... what more is necessary to being a professional author?
Re:Not professional? (Score:1)
Re:Not professional? (Score:1)
Re:NASA's Aimlessness (Score:1)
Re:Of course, the trips to moon were faked, right? (Score:1)
Re:NASA's Aimlessness (Score:2)
So what are we doing now? The International Space Station. Not only will this serve as an excellent scientific resource and a launching site for other space ventures, it also shows us that we are capable of organizing ourselves as a race to achieve things that are not merely "impossible", but rather are significantly useful.
The space station is a poor joke right now. While a space station is a good idea in principle, the one they have on the drawing board won't be much more than a sound studio for NASA's irrelevence. It is too small, too underpowered. Remember when they packaged the Shuttle as a space truck? Same deal: NASA's bureaucracy created the least common denominator of its leader's egos, a big expensive mess which isn't optimized for anything-- let alone the cheap workhorse they envisioned.
It wouldn't be so bad if we could point to it as a launching site for other ventures, like a moon or mars base. But it isn't. The thing has zero industrial capability, minor public relations capability, and minor scientific capability.
NASA is getting to the point where it is irrelevent. Pure research is good and all, but much cheaper when you did your industrial work first and just need a couple spare rooms for a researcher. We're putting the cart before the horse in our relentless race for tang and velcro.
I'm about as big a fan of space expansion as anyone there is. But NASA ain't it. If the choice were NASA or nothing, I'd pick NASA. But apart from those unmanned probes, they are doing nothing right now other than spinning their wheels and building big useless sound stages in space.
Wow. What a contribution to the human race. (Score:1)
Hundreds, maybe thousands of years from now, people will look back at the twentieth century: the moon landing will be the most important happening of that century, and quite possible of that millenium.
Re:NASA's Aimlessness (Score:1)
regarding all the ecological problems we're still making worse and worse, i think we can be lucky if mankind survives the next 1000 years.
before you start worrying about whether or not we are still here when the sun burns out you should worry about environmental issues.
Re:NASA's Aimlessness (Score:1)
By making "the moon in ten years" our goal, rather than following scientific goals, we probably set back our progress towards having a space station that can truely act as a launching pad for more continuous and deeper exploration of space. I often wonder where we would be today if we had not killed the rocket plane projects. Would we have had a "space plane" twenty years ago, instead of the Shuttle? Would we have had a space station in orbit for a few years now? We may never know, but we sure beat those Russians to the moon, didn't we!
Re:Space travel isn't feasible (Score:2)
True, but still not good enough. We're already near the maximum possible efficiency and it's just not enough.
If reusable rockets can be built, the actual cost per passenger is little more than the cost of a Concorde ticket, assuming designs like the Roton can be made to work, space travel becomes a heck of a lot more airline like.
Even the head of Rotary Rocket isn't that optimistic on costs. I've met him. And Rotary Rocket has other problems. The current Rotary Rocket vehicle is suborbital only; they can't quite make it to orbit because the weight budget is so tight. The original rotary-nozzle engine was supposed to take them to orbit, but they couldn't afford the development, and they're now using an off-the-shelf engine with a turbopump. This broke their weight budget. The current vehicle is now viewed as a proof-of-concept vehicle to justify another round of funding.
But that isn't why they are so expensive- its simpler than that, its because so few rockets are made. Costs for low numbers - its often cheaper to build one than 20; but even cheaper to build 1000.
Rockets have been built in 1000+ quantities. Some of the ICBM boosters were produced in thousands. They get cheaper, but they're still an expensive way to move a few hundred pounds to orbit. The Saturn V still holds the record on lowest cost per pound in orbit. (Yes, Shuttle costs are higher, even amortizing the vehicle over 100 launches.) The "cheap, dumb booster" idea has been floated, but launch success rates now hover around 80%, which is not very good. A cheaper booster with an even lower success rate would not be a win as a satellite launcher.
You mention nuclear. ... And the devastation if it crashes would be Chernobyl like.
Yeah. But I wish the US had launched an Orion in the 1960s, back when the US was still doing atmospheric nuclear tests, just so we knew it was possible. Obviously you launch from somewhere very far from anybody. It's not totally clean or safe, but back then the risk would have been considered acceptable.
I give it 30 years and then we'll see thousands of people living in space.
It's 30 years since Apollo, and we have maybe 2 to 8 people in space at any one time. I expect than in 30 years, there will be about as many people living in space as now live in Antarctica.
If space travel ever gets big, it won't be by chemical propulsion.
Space travel isn't feasible (Score:3)
Thirty years later, there hasn't been much progress. Chemical rockets are still too weak, nuclear propulsion [nasa.gov] doesn't get much attention, and none of the other propulsion concepts [nasa.gov] are even close to working. That's where we are today - stuck.
Re:NASA's Aimlessness (Score:1)
All through American history, and important innovating force has been government research. Just think of the things that have come from their research: the internet (not al gore, DARPA), materials research, and more. It wasnt the trip to the moon that mattered, but the stuff they found on their way there.
*Not a Sermon, Just a Thought
*/
Gene Cernan's "Last Man on The Moon" (Score:2)
Cernan's book is written from the perscpective of the astronaut (obviously) battling the NASA brass, the difficult training and the various tribulations (he covers all the lows and highs) of being one of the most high profile people in America in the 60s and 70s.
I think it'd be an interesting contrast to "Failure..." because of the diversity of perspective - kinda like reading the two competing books on Mitnick's time on the lam. Kranz's perspective likely differs dramatically from that of fighter pilot Cernan.
This may be the ultimate in nerdy things to admit, but I don't read books that much. My father actually called me from a book signing somewhere to ask me if I wanted a copy of Cernan's book. After I got by the "Who the hell is Gene Cernan?" part (he was on Apollo 10 and Apollo 17 - the last trip to the Moon), I said sure, thinking I'd stuff it on a shelf somewhere. After reading the opening chapters thinking "I'll never finish this," I did plow right through it.
Anyway, to stay on topic, it would be a good contrast to this book. (And, no I don't work for Cernan or any publishing companies.)
==
"This is the nineties. You don't just go around punching people. You have to say something cool first."
The moon was a bad idea (Score:1)
Ever since men went to the moon, there is no good excuse for technical difficulties. Now all we hear is "They sent a man to the moon, but they can't deliver my email","They sent a man to the moon but my toaster just broke","They sent a man to the moon but my fibre channel hardware doesn't play nice together."
Seems like before men went to the moon, we had an excuse for whatever technical thingy didn't work.
Re:The real story: management structure (Score:1)
Only annual? (Score:1)
I find I can't get enough of Apollo. Phrases like "Contact light!" and "Give me a go/no-go for ___" and "Master alarm!" and "Houston, what's the story on this 1201?" don't help.
Re:Déja vù? (Score:1)
Failure was never an option, but.... (Score:1)
to make no mistakes, and still Loose.
That's not Fair - that's just life"
Captain Picard, Star Trek: The Next Generation (trying to teach Data a bit about the realities of humanity)
--
Re:The real story: management structure (Score:1)
Failure is not an option?? (Score:2)
I'm not insinuating that we stop exploring space, but that we should take our failures in stride.
"Assume the worst about people, and you'll generally be correct"
Re:Space travel isn't feasible (Score:1)
The design can probably be made to work, given funding. Of course the devil is in the details. One problem they have is that most of the launch demand appears to be above 9000 lbs, and they are only launching 7000lbs. The demand may change if they can launch cheaply though; or they may be able to launch geosats separately to the LEO-GEO booster.
The "cheap, dumb booster" idea has been floated, but launch success rates now hover around 80%, which is not very good. A cheaper booster with an even lower success rate would not be a win as a satellite launcher.
True, but there isn't much correlation between size and failure rate. There's a much bigger correlation between number of previous launches of a design and success rate.
Besides big rockets are cheaper not because the scaling laws help big rockets, more because the number of people you need doesn't increase much as the size of the rocket grows. For all intents and purposes all of the cost of a rocket goes into personnel costs. The Russians make the cheapest rockets- take the proton- about $3-4 million per tonne. Some of their launchers have an excellent safety record.
Re:Space travel isn't feasible (Score:2)
First, chemical fueled rockets aren't impractical. Its a little known fact that the most thermodynamically efficient engine ever built is the rocket engine- its about 60%. This is because they run at very high temperature.
If reusable rockets can be built, the actual cost per passenger is little more than the cost of a Concorde ticket, assuming designs like the Roton [rotaryrocket.com] can be made to work, space travel becomes a heck of a lot more airline like.
That's where the costs go. Not in fuel (fuel costs are insignificant percentage-wise), but in the rockets that get currently thrown away after each flight. But that isn't why they are so expensive- its simpler than that, its because so few rockets are made. Costs for low numbers - its often cheaper to build one than 20; but even cheaper to build 1000.
You mention nuclear. Nuclear is fantastic for interplanetary drives. But launching from the earth is different story. Nobody has even successfully made a nuclear aeroplane. Weight is even more critical achieving orbit, and nuclear reactors need heavy shielding. And the devastation if it crashes would be Chernobyl like.
Actually the situation is improving. For one thing there are a lot more launchers out there now. The price is coming down due to competition; people are asking how can we get some of that 30 billion a year cake that makes up space?
I give it 30 years and then we'll see thousands of people living in space. The reasons it will take that long are economic. Somebody with a couple of billion to spare could make it happen much sooner though.
I third this!! (was Re:Slashdot Interview?) (Score:1)
HEY...THAT'S MR. KRANZ TO YOU!!!! (Score:1)
EVERY KID W/ A PC CALL ME JEAN...
NEXT TIME, YOU AAAND THAT PENGUIN
DOLL ARE OUTA HERE
But seriously folks, I personally
view this as yet again another stab at
rationalizing the fact that an agency of
the
a program that has dashed the hopes &
aspirations of millions of us w/only
merginal payback. If we didn't get velcro from
NASA we woulda got it from the aliens
at Roswell.]
First, they could only build the
rocket w/ German scientists, who
ovewrbuilt the damn things.
Multistaging proves they were
aware that it would be faaaar
easier to build & fly from orbit,
than to raise the whole thing in
a single piece from the ground.
Allegedly Buck Rogers Braun wanted
a media coup so it was done the hardway.
Instead of making a direct orbital
insertion from the ground The ship went
into lo Earth orbit, a huge squandering of resources.
Next the remaining section goes into
a higher orbit which is now a stupendous
waste of funds, a ship thrusting from from
apogee into an orbit must first rise then
stabilize, then loose enough energy not
to overshoot the new orbit. According to
Hohman's orbital transition theorems,
as a rule of thumb stabilizing a new orbit
requires the energy to rise to a height of
15 x the difference of the two orbital levels.
Thus, w/o the two orbital transitions,
The lifting body or saturn 5 would
have only needed to be half as strong &
therefore very much smaller.
Now they say its unfeasible
because they lost the specs to the SaturnV
Rocket. We don't need them. The deep
space voyager has supplied such favoable results
for ion rockets that a spacetug [builtin space]
driven by solar power & changing the ship's
momentum with relativistic electrons, which
I call momentons,.] The tug stays
up indefinitely, One only needs a small
vessel to dock passengers & Cargo & a
recharge period.
^ ^ ^
You have never truly
been in love until
your gonadotrophins
have been adjusted
with a
MICROWAVE LASER
Re:HEY...THAT'S MR. KRANZ TO YOU!!!! (Score:1)
true, but its one of the opening hurdles
in any discussion w/ NASA;
'We'd go but, we don't have the SaturnV
specs.
These guys all got that thin liped
anal retentive look. Ya can
stick a grit up their but, but bbbb
ya can't get it it out.
Same w/ there s----- plans.
As for the rumor it was
flooded on *all* the news networks.
I'm thinking of putting up a
web page outlineing a betatron
type ion rocket. Working up some
gifs to illustrate the low voltage
[relatively]resonant accelleration
to near light speeds of electrons.
Maybe, one lone guy can embarrass them into getting real.
I wonder what percentage of my words are
going to come out like I wrote them
^ ^ ^
One of the more remarkable aspects
of dental caries is that the
trauma to the cheek tissue is
signifigantly greater than
the turgor elaborated about the
damaged roots in many patients.
Sounds like radiation damage
caused by a MICROWAVE LASER
Re:HEY...THAT'S MR. KRANZ TO YOU!!!! (Score:2)
Uh, NASA has the complete specs to the Saturn V booster plus all the engineering data plus all the test data and most of the engineers who worked on it are still living. I'm not quite sure where the myth started that we lost the design plans, but it is false.
Re:Of course, the trips to moon were faked, right? (Score:1)
That's good and all... (Score:1)
Chemical propulsion was the only way to go (Score:1)
If they had started working on the idea of sending people to Moon with anything else than "big chemically fueled-rockets", we'd be really stuck: the moon would not have been visited and all the money would have been diverted to something "more worthwhile" like extending the federal bureaucracy.
Sometimes you just have to go with what you got.
To the moon (Score:1)