From: nospam@127.0.0.1   
      
   On 2021-05-10 7:11 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:   
   > I have no doubt that SpaceX will iterate Raptor into a reliable engine.   
   > Starship and Super Heavy are still under development, but they too are   
   > using iterative development.  If all goes well, we'll see Starship prove   
   > out in orbit cryogenic refueling and reuse of an upper stage.  These are   
   > both things that other companies could have been working on decades ago,   
   > but chose not to.   
   >   
   > Jeff   
   >   
      
   There are essentially two issues here you raise with Old Space and a   
   third meta-issue that I think deserve a bit more reflection upon as to   
   why we ended up where we did relative to SpaceX.   
      
   I'll start with the second issue last. And that is the idea that 'other   
   companies' could have been working on reusable rockets decades ago. From   
   a technical perspective, prior to the 1980s I don't think so. Stuffing   
   the automation required into a rocket that didn't make it the size of a   
   Saturn just wasn't feasible. I use the automation in the Space Shuttle   
   as case one as to why. Somewhere in the mid to late 80's, from an   
   electronics perspective anyway (my area of knowledge) I think avionics   
   for controlled rocket reentry became feasible. And with designs like   
   DC-X we saw it was not only possible but realizable. And that was   
   McDonnell Douglas in the early 1990s. 3 decades back good enough? But   
   why did it end? That gets to my meta reason at the end.   
      
   The first issue has been discussed here before and that is the iterative   
   development model. SpaceX worked on a plan for itself based on prior   
   achievements but it didn't do this in a vacuum. Without COTS / CCDEV and   
   NASA funding it's not clear they could have bridged the gap between   
   Falcon 1 and Falcon 9. That was a big leap. That Falcon 1 achieved orbit   
   earned them cred with NASA that gained them the funding they needed to   
   continue. The commercial satellite contracts followed, but if memory   
   serves the com-sat folks were not ahead of NASA in line and none before   
   Falcon 9. NASA took care of the funding, but the iterative design work   
   and the dedication to reuse was a goal derived from a unique goal of   
   affordability that Elon baked into the company from the beginning. And   
   why is that important? Here is where we get to the meta-issue.   
      
   Until SpaceX came along, Old Space companies were more than happy to let   
   NASA and the USAF and to a lesser extent, DARPA determine what the goals   
   and objectives of their rocket programs should be. There was NO, ZERO,   
   ZILCH self-motivation. None of the Old Space companies had plans or   
   goals of their own for space exploration. Unlike their aircraft   
   divisions which were driven by commercial airlines, only the government   
   was in the drivers seat for rocketry. And because of that, it stagnated.   
   Well stagnated is not perhaps the right word. Because rocketry in the US   
   was not a private enterprise after WWII. After Goddard's experiments   
   there was no follow on. Perhaps in terms of weather observation there   
   might have been a glimmer of a commercial enterprise, but doubtful since   
   even before WWII weather observation and forecasting was considered a   
   domain of the government. The nearest idea I can come up with for   
   commercialization of rocketry was orbiting satellites as more reliable   
   communication relays than shortwave. But to fully leverage that   
   reliability would have required many, many LEO satellites and technology   
   that was unavailable to Goddard in his time. GEO would have been out of   
   the question until the science and engineering had advanced to a higher   
   state of the art. It's hard to image any one US company with pockets   
   deep enough to fund that effort.   
      
   The truly novel thing about SpaceX, is not that it built affordable   
   rockets. Not that it built re-usable rockets. Not that is uses   
   incremental designs. Nope the truly unique thing about SpaceX is that it   
   was the first rocket company to be ->self-motivated<-. The ideas and the   
   reasons for its designs came from Elon Musk's desire to get to Mars and   
   to figure out ways to enable that. Without the motivation of 'doing   
   space' in their own way, I don't think any of those breakthroughs that   
   followed would have taken place. NASA kept them alive at a key juncture   
   in their evolution, but now it's beginning to take shape, with   
   commercial contracts to keep it alive, and everyone else can come along   
   for the ride.   
      
   Dave   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)