| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| In Salvaging Cold War Industries, Russia Trains Eyes on Space |
| 2013-12-28 |
| h/t Instapundit While Russia is the world leader in space launches and Russian-built engines equip U.S. rockets, it holds less than 10 percent of the multi-billion dollar global space market. And Puti wants it to change---no thoughts of reaching out to Muslims etc... . Is it just me, or Western "Elites" are truly a bunch of anti-technological (except for their i-pods), semi-illiterate oiks? |
| Posted by:g(r)omgoru |
| #2 The government literally goldbricked the development of better launch vehicles here, and since they're the main customer, they dictated a regime where they could micromanage the launch industry to death. They killed DC-X, handed the followup program over to NASA and lockheed under the belief that RLV's should be done at NASA, which mismanaged it, concluded RLV's were impossible, and then went on to go into an endless loop designing ELV's. Meanwhile, limited to ELV's themselves, the military went on to build two ELV programs and then threw most of their business at the one with engines built in Russia, at the same time when we're-not-supposed-to-be-doing-business-with-Russia-because-they're-giving-Iran-the-bomb. For some background information on this, see Mike Griffin: The Spoiled Generation @ Transterrestrial Musings: Asked by Jeff Greason why we as a society stopped pushing the technologies we needed to be pre-eminent in civil and military space, the former administrator blamed it on “My Generation,” the Baby Boomers. He prefaced the statement with the caveat that he had thought long and hard about it, and didn’t have a good answer, and that it was only his opinion, and that it might be wrong. Obviously many of us are exceptions (and he obviously thinks himself one) but that was the only answer that he could come up with. In response to a question from Greg Sullivan, he noted that when we feel threatened (e.g., being attacked with IEDs) we throw the acquisition book out the window to solve the problem. Clearly, we don’t currently feel threatened enough to do that with space technology development and acquisition. [Update a while later] Jeff’s answer: We don’t want game-changing technologies, because they upset the Russians, and arms-control regimes. They don’t like game changers, because they like and are comfortable with the game. Reagan administration was rare exception. Not surprised that we do not attain that which we do not want. In commercial market, the market will drive things. If Brilliant Pebbles had gone forward, we’d have much cheaper launch today. If there was a market, we’d have satisfied it by now. If assured market, he could go to the bank and get the money for reusable vehicle. Demand is key. Airmail-like things would help (already starting this with COTS). Could buy payloads and capability, rather than resources. Isn’t as concerned about tech development for launch vehicles, except things that allow SSTO. But it’s important to learn how to integrate two-stage stage system, and that would be productive area. And there's Tom Billings' comment on that article: “I recall that back in the DC-X days there was a senior staffer on the Hill who was openly against CATS (Cheap Access To Space) – he thought it would enable SDI etc. and he believed that would destabilizing….” Yes, …then in 1993 that staffer, John Hamre, was appointed Comptroller of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, …The man who signs the checks. Once that happened, every check the program got was like pulling teeth. Hamre delayed the program enough that SDI could not fund Delta Clipper before the new “Space Architect” assigned all manned spaceflight to NASA. We know what happened after that. Another example would be the EELV program I mentioned earlier: it produced two rockets, one built in the US, and one that attaches Russian engines to US tankage. They threw twice as much business at the Atlas (which is the one with Russian engines) as at the Delta, supposedly to punish Boeing for some contracting irregularities and ethical breaches. That Lockheed was supposed to develop a US built rocket instead of just tankage wasn't seen as a contracting irregularity or an ethical breach. For the record, the Delta IV has had 1 partial failure in 24 launches, while the Atlas V has had 1 partial failure in 42 launches. While all of this was going on, btw, Elon Musk came along and built a business and an expendable launch vehicle around a further development of an engine from one of the RLV designs NASA cancelled back in the 90's. He's beating Russian prices with an American vehicle with American engines. And he has plans to make it reusable. Everything SpaceX has done was possible in 1990, the elites just chose not to do it. |
| Posted by: Thing From Snowy Mountain 2013-12-28 11:23 |
| #1 That's because in space no one can hear you whine. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2013-12-28 04:07 |