An idea About the Thames Tideway Tunnel

Posted Apr 22, 2013 20:25 UTC (Mon) by khim (subscriber, #9252)
In reply to: An idea About the Thames Tideway Tunnel by XERC
Parent article: Huang: The $12 Gongkai Phone

If I were the London city key official, then I would finance a project that leaves the current, rainwater based system, intact, because the "right place for clean rainwater" is in the river, and would build a parallel sewage system that uses only the water that comes from toilets and alike. The current, Thales, approach assumes that a huge amount of rainwater, that is already clean enough to be added to the river when it flows on a street, is first mixed with the infectious sewage and then , later, a lot of effort is made for transporting the dirty version of that, initially clean, rain-water and filtering it out of the infectious mixture.

Ah, ideal worlds of RPGs! They have such a nice, clean rainwater which belongs to river...

Sadly in our reality the biggest pollutant are not humans, but cars. And where do you think all that toxic road run-off goes after rain? Exactly.

Now, it may still be a net win to separate these (heavy metal from cars need different treatments then bacterial pollution from human waste), but since there are a lot of places where they can be mixed I'm not sure if it'll be a net win. More information is needed.

If the only, ultimate, solution is to keep them separate, then the London city officials should just get on with it, start the real project in stead of financing gigantic ad-hoc solutions.

The next Space Shuttle project? Sorry, but one failure was more then enough.

P.S. People often don't understand why I say that Space Shuttle is colossal management failure: come on, it's slightly cheaper to launch something to orbit using Space Shuttle then it's to do that using Apollo - surely it's a success? Not so. At the beginning of Space Shuttle program Apollo program was finished. It was not possible to go back in time and save Apollo's R&D cost by replacing it with Space Shuttle. Which means that ongoing costs of keeping Saturn V and Apollo alive should be compared to development cost of Space Shuttle (and you need to add ongoing costs, too, of course) - and by that measure it's miserable failure. Your "great" sewers idea has the same issue: sure, if you build sewers for a new city it may be feasible to have two parallel systems, but when you deal with the existing city then solutions that "are just piled up on old infrastructure" may actually be preferable.

An idea About the Thames Tideway Tunnel

Posted Apr 23, 2013 0:47 UTC (Tue) by XERC (guest, #14626) [Link] (1 responses)

I agree with the Space Shuttle example, but only TILL IMPROVEMENTS HAVE TO BE MADE to the old rockets. From that point onwards it's more reasonable to dedicate the development resources to brand new technology.

Same thing with the sewers: new and thoroughly renovated houses should be connected to the parallel, rain-water-free, system.

Not that nice from Public Relation's point of view, e.g. can't sell that idea to get votes at next elections, but makes sense in a few hundred year perspective.

An idea About the Thames Tideway Tunnel

Posted Apr 23, 2013 6:36 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

I agree with the Space Shuttle example, but only TILL IMPROVEMENTS HAVE TO BE MADE to the old rockets. From that point onwards it's more reasonable to dedicate the development resources to brand new technology.

Abstract ideas with no basis in reality again? Space Shuttle is rare program which threw away everything and started from scratch. There were other programs which did what you say is a sin: Delta in US, Proton and Soyuz in USSR, etc. They all produced more effective, robust and safe way to the orbit.

Same thing with the sewers: new and thoroughly renovated houses should be connected to the parallel, rain-water-free, system.

Well, yes: it's easy to create new, modern and ineffective solution. But to know if it'll be a net win or loss you need to compare costs and benefits of both solutions.

Not that nice from Public Relation's point of view, e.g. can't sell that idea to get votes at next elections, but makes sense in a few hundred year perspective.

If your project is beneficial only on timespans measured in centuries then it's a failure: too many unknowns and they tend to increase costs and decrease benefits.

Apollo vs. the Space Shuttle?

Posted Apr 23, 2013 10:04 UTC (Tue) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link] (8 responses)

Comparing Apollo and the Space Shuttle by looking at the cost of getting things into orbit ignores the fact that Apollo wasn't meant to get things into orbit cheaply. The Apollo program was geared towards getting people to the Moon – for a very brief visit – and back (and hopefully before the Soviet Union did it), while the Space Shuttle program was geared towards doing Useful Things in low Earth orbit on a sustainable basis over a period of decades. In terms of space engineering these are very different goals.

You could compare these to winning the Formula 1 world cup vs. getting deliveries done around town. Both are ultimately feats of both engineering and management that should not be belittled (although one of them gets more press). Of course a delivery van will do the latter more efficently and cheaply than a race car, but that is to a greater extent due to facts such as that the delivery van has a big space in the back where you can put stuff, that it will run for thousands of kilometers without needing a lot of maintenance, and that it is road-certified – all of which are perfect non-issues if you're building a Formula 1 racer. So if Ferrari suddenly decided to build delivery vans, having built a championship Formula 1 race car before would probably help them some (automotive engineering being what it is), but re-using or even changing the Formula 1 design would not lead to a useful delivery van. Hence it is ludicrous to claim that Ferrari should compare the ongoing cost of re-using the Formula 1 car design that Ferrari already has, to the R&D cost of coming up with a new design for a delivery van that will actually do the job at hand.

Of course – especially with 20/20 hindsight – it is easy to claim that the Space Shuttle program was a »colossal management failure«. However, simply continuing the Apollo and Saturn V programs wouldn't have helped NASA do what NASA did with the Space Shuttle. There might have been better ways of accomplishing the same goals (and in 2013 the outlook for that is a lot more positive than in 1973), and the Space Shuttle program could surely have been managed better (especially in light of the Challenger crash and its aftermath), but projects of that scale tend to develop a life of their own that does not always proceed according to optimal management and engineering theories.

We have known for a long time that the Space Shuttle program, for all the cool technology involved, fell far short of what was originally expected of it both from a operating-cost and a technical-performance POV, which is a pity but is also what happens when you're messing around with very new things. It was still an important thing to do. So tell us something else that is new.

Apollo vs. the Space Shuttle?

Posted Apr 23, 2013 11:53 UTC (Tue) by pboddie (guest, #50784) [Link] (4 responses)

Looking at the historical record, comparing Apollo to the Space Shuttle in the way done in this thread is almost getting things backwards or at least only selectively considering all the factors involved.

For instance, spending towards Apollo had fewer constraints than that towards the Space Shuttle, even when considering the budgetary curtailments made in the late 1960s as US politicians saw the opportunity to ramp down spending on space (and ramp up spending on war), leading to the end of Saturn/Apollo production (and the repurposing of vehicles for things like Skylab and Apollo/Soyuz). If you look at it from that perspective, the role of the Space Shuttle programme within NASA and its admittedly overambitious objectives was a bit like telling the sanitation department that "yes, you can try and provide clean water, but do so with a tenth of the money and there will be no more digging!"

One can argue that the money spent on the STS might have been better spent on existing programmes - with recent "doing more for less" activities, there has been talk of using Atlas V to launch some manned spacecraft (although it isn't strictly a continuation of Apollo-era Atlas) - but it's all a question of achieving the right result with the right amount of effort, and having a sustainable organisation. One can also argue that NASA and associated organisations have never got this right (and that various military-industrial contractors make good money from the result), but I also think that the budgetary conditions that NASA operates within are rather different to that of large and necessary infrastructure projects, at least within developed countries: even in Britain, governments will commit large sums over several years to get such projects done, whereas NASA will see funding rise and fall depending on the mood of the legislature.

I think that what almost all of us can agree on, however, is that infrastructure investment is incredibly expensive and is virtually impossible to achieve at any scale for disadvantaged people acting alone and unsupported whose lives are already dominated by the fight to merely survive.

Apollo vs. the Space Shuttle?

Posted Apr 23, 2013 22:04 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (3 responses)

For instance, spending towards Apollo had fewer constraints than that towards the Space Shuttle.

Of course. When you build an Formula 1 car price is less important then when you build "a delivery van".

If you look at it from that perspective, the role of the Space Shuttle programme within NASA and its admittedly overambitious objectives was a bit like telling the sanitation department that "yes, you can try and provide clean water, but do so with a tenth of the money and there will be no more digging!"

Which is, of course, stupid. Either you need to decide that there should be no more digging (and then you'll get by without clean water) you you need to approve digging. The fact that you accept an explanation of sanitation department that it can provide clean water "with a tenth of the money and no more digging" leads to the stone soup of a Space Shuttle. Which in the end requires more money and more digging then straightforward approach of keeping old wells around.

One can argue that the money spent on the STS might have been better spent on existing programmes - with recent "doing more for less" activities, there has been talk of using Atlas V to launch some manned spacecraft (although it isn't strictly a continuation of Apollo-era Atlas) - but it's all a question of achieving the right result with the right amount of effort, and having a sustainable organisation.

Yes. That's why I say Space Shuttle is great engineering achievement (no joke, it's really a marvel from the engineering POV) yet miserable managerial failure. The fact that it was actually built and used shows how great NASA engineers are and the fact that it was ever started shows how gullible the top management is.

I think that what almost all of us can agree on, however, is that infrastructure investment is incredibly expensive and is virtually impossible to achieve at any scale for disadvantaged people acting alone and unsupported whose lives are already dominated by the fight to merely survive.

Yup. It's question of scale. You can not do them with a small community and people who can organize and lead large communities rarely stay in slums.

Apollo vs. the Space Shuttle?

Posted Apr 24, 2013 11:01 UTC (Wed) by pboddie (guest, #50784) [Link] (2 responses)

The fact that you accept an explanation of sanitation department that it can provide clean water "with a tenth of the money and no more digging" leads to the stone soup of a Space Shuttle.

Bear in mind, here, that you originally appeared to bring up the Space Shuttle as an example of starting over at great expense (in response to the idea that the London authorities should "start the real project", in the words of the commenter advocating an end to "gigantic ad-hoc solutions"), but getting by on reduced means is more or less what the Space Shuttle was all about.

A lot of the problems shared by large infrastructure owners and NASA have something to do with how you schedule the financing. Thus, from what I've read from various historical accounts, the idea with the Space Transportation System was to promise a scalable platform with something supposedly affordable in the beginning that could be expanded through further investment later on, thus deferring the expense to future taxpayers: a classic political move.

This does actually cross back over to the original article, sort of. One might wonder why people don't save up for a better phone than some $12 unit that some might regard as disposable, but the answer has something to do with needing what it offers straight away and not having the luxury to put money aside for something better. Over time, this may actually mean that the unfortunate customer ends up spending more money on lower-quality products that need replacing than on durable higher-quality ones. Naturally, the sale of lower-quality "economy" products is a rather widespread business model.

Apollo vs. the Space Shuttle?

Posted Apr 24, 2013 12:06 UTC (Wed) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link]

sometimes you are better off getting the cheap thing now and replacing it relatively soon rather than getting the expensive thing now.

In areas where the thing you are looking at buying is changing rapidly (improving, dropping in price, etc), buying a top-of-the-line device and replacing it every 5 years is far more expensive, and results in you having a worse device on average than if you buy a el-cheapo device and replace it every year.

Now, if there really is a durability difference, and the object in question is not changing significantly (example boots), then it really can be better to spend a lot more money up front and get the expensive, durable version. And in cases like this, people who can't afford to invest that much money up front do suffer in the long run.

But that doesn't make the people who produce the cheap boots 'exploiters of the masses' or anything like that, they are producing a product that people want, and if the product wasn't available the consumer would be worse off (because they would have to do without, as the lack of a cheap product would not magically give people money to buy the expensive version)

Don't forget that there is a time value of money. Even excluding inflation, current money is worth more than future money, and so tieing up more cash now to get the more expensive version may really be worse for you than getting the cheap version and having the cash available for other things, even if it does cost more in the long run. The larger a percentage of your available cash a particular purchase is, the more likely it is to be a problem. (this is one of the reasons that once someone gets enough wealth, they tend to get richer, they can afford to make decisions that cost more now, but save money in the long run as these decisions involve a much smaller percentage of their available capitol)

perfect is the enemy of good enough. It's not always better to do without while designing/building/saving for the perfect solution.

As for the Shuttle, that's a topic that is FAR to big to go into now. It's an impressive engineering achievement, but was mis-managed not just by NASA, but by Congress as well. There is more than enough blame to spread around there. It never really achieved it's goal (making access to space routine) and while it was presented as a 'delivery van' it was built and managed more like a custom, hand build, Rolls Royce fleet of station waggons. They were years (decades??) behind schedule getting built, but in large part were limited by the technology available at the time the design process was started. I remember reading articles calling for them to be replaced by more modern designs back in the early 80's (and not with new start-from-scratch technologies, but with re-using existing components for the most part, but leveraging the new design capabilities that existed by then)

Apollo vs. the Space Shuttle?

Posted Apr 27, 2013 20:58 UTC (Sat) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

Thus, from what I've read from various historical accounts, the idea with the Space Transportation System was to promise a scalable platform with something supposedly affordable in the beginning that could be expanded through further investment later on, thus deferring the expense to future taxpayers: a classic political move.

Sorry, by no, not even close:

Another competing approach was maintaining the Saturn V production line and using its large payload capacity to launch a space station in a few payloads rather than many smaller shuttle payloads. A related concept was servicing the space station using the Air Force Titan II-M to launch a larger Gemini capsule, called "Big Gemini", rather than using the shuttle.

The shuttle supporters answered that given enough launches, a reusable system would have lower overall costs than disposable rockets. If dividing total program costs over a given number of launches, a high shuttle launch rate would result in lower per-launch costs. This in turn would make the shuttle cost competitive with or superior to expendable launchers. Some theoretical studies mentioned 55 shuttle launches per year, however the final design chosen would not support that launch rate. In particular the maximum external tank production rate was limited to 24 tanks per year at NASA's Michoud Assembly Facility.

From the very beginning it was the opposite of your portrayal: yes, Space Shuttle promised savings "sometime in the future" but of course R&D budget was huge from the very beginning - exactly as proposed insane plan for sewers.

Apollo vs. the Space Shuttle?

Posted Apr 23, 2013 21:51 UTC (Tue) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (2 responses)

Comparing Apollo and the Space Shuttle by looking at the cost of getting things into orbit ignores the fact that Apollo wasn't meant to get things into orbit cheaply.

Nope. That's the whole freaking point!

The Apollo program was geared towards getting people to the Moon – for a very brief visit – and back (and hopefully before the Soviet Union did it), while the Space Shuttle program was geared towards doing Useful Things in low Earth orbit on a sustainable basis over a period of decades.

Right.

In terms of space engineering these are very different goals.

May be, but does it mean it's good idea to develop something new from scratch for the latter goal if you already know how to solve former goal? NASA had a choice: continue to advance Altas (which brought first US citizen in space, remember), Delta, Saturn V and others or develop something new from scratch. By now Space Shuttle is history and we know that total cost is higher for the second variant (if you'll spread R&D cost over all 135 you still get huge sums even if you'll forget about huge disparity between promised price of launch and actual price of launch), so how can you say it was sane choice?

Space Shuttle is both majestic and awful: the fact that this beast was eventually brought to space is great achievement, but the fact that it was ever conceived is miserable failure.

So if Ferrari suddenly decided to build delivery vans, having built a championship Formula 1 race car before would probably help them some (automotive engineering being what it is), but re-using or even changing the Formula 1 design would not lead to a useful delivery van.

That's the problem: it was cheaper to adjust Formula 1 design in this particular case! The development cost of new delivery van was so huge and savings from it so minuscule that suppositional savings never materialized.

Hence it is ludicrous to claim that Ferrari should compare the ongoing cost of re-using the Formula 1 car design that Ferrari already has, to the R&D cost of coming up with a new design for a delivery van that will actually do the job at hand.

Why is it ridiculous? Well, may be not with Formula 1 and delivery van, but this is routine calculations Airbus or Boeing are doing. Any new plane must not only be cheaper then a plane it replaces, but also must recoup R&D cost, or else it's considered failure. If there are not enough savings in the supposed lifetime of some model then projects are shelved early on. Why should NASA should treated any differently?

However, simply continuing the Apollo and Saturn V programs wouldn't have helped NASA do what NASA did with the Space Shuttle.

Really? What exact capability Space Shuttle offered over Apollo which was ever used for something? It had the ability to return large amount of stuff from space, true, but this capability was never actually used and everything else Mercury or Apollo had the ability to do.

There might have been better ways of accomplishing the same goals (and in 2013 the outlook for that is a lot more positive than in 1973), and the Space Shuttle program could surely have been managed better (especially in light of the Challenger crash and its aftermath), but projects of that scale tend to develop a life of their own that does not always proceed according to optimal management and engineering theories.

Initial calculations already showed that advantage of Space Shuttle over Apollo were tiny and as we now know they were very, very optimistic. The only true capability Space Shuttle brought to the table was never used, so... where is the win?

Apollo vs. the Space Shuttle?

Posted Apr 24, 2013 19:37 UTC (Wed) by intgr (subscriber, #39733) [Link] (1 responses)

> What exact capability Space Shuttle offered over Apollo which was ever used for something? It had the ability to return large amount of stuff from space, true, but this capability was never actually used

It had another capability, it could glide! :)

Bear with me because I don't know very much about space tech and I have no way of verifying these claims. But it's an interesting theory, especially in light of what you say about its ability to retrieve things from space and its cost/benefit analysis.

A few years ago I read an article which talked about U.S. military involvement in the Space Shuttle project (I think it was in relation to the X-37 unmanned space vehicle). It claimed that USAF played a role in choosing the particular winged design for the Space Shuttle (out of many), despite the fact that it was unpopular with NASA engineers. Unfortunately I can't find the original article any more.

One of the purported military uses was the ability to get into orbit, steal an enemy satellite and glide back to Earth, circling the planet in less than a day. It escapes me why gliding was particularly important for this use.

On the other hand, with a different design and without military interests, maybe the project would have never been funded.

Apollo vs. the Space Shuttle?

Posted Apr 24, 2013 20:03 UTC (Wed) by cladisch (✭ supporter ✭, #50193) [Link]

> One of the purported military uses was the ability to get into orbit, steal an enemy satellite and glide back to Earth, circling the planet in less than a day. It escapes me why gliding was particularly important for this use.

The requirement was for the shuttle to be able to change its course somewhat (in the atmosphere, thus the wing shape) so that it could return back to where it started even after the earth had rotated the start point away: Mission 3A/3B (PDF).

An idea About the Thames Tideway Tunnel

Posted Apr 24, 2013 14:41 UTC (Wed) by tialaramex (subscriber, #21167) [Link] (1 responses)

The summary is that yes, it's a net win. If you build a new city today (and indeed when new cities were built in the mid 20th century onward) combined sewers are not normally used. Rain water from gutters and pavements flows into storm sewers and both the "black water" (human waste) and "grey water" (washing machines, baths, etc.) go into the sanitary sewers which lead to a treatment plant.

In principle "separating" London's sewers isn't impossible. But it would be prohibitively expensive. Some US cities have done it, but we're not talking about New York or Los Angeles here, but rather places like Minneapolis - scarcely comparable to London in either size or density.

An idea About the Thames Tideway Tunnel

Posted Apr 28, 2013 14:00 UTC (Sun) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link]

Boston has been working on it for a few decades now. I think the reason it's desirable to separate them is that if you need to overflow, it's much better to overflow rainwater than sewage, even if you normally want to treat both.

http://www.mwra.state.ma.us/03sewer/html/sewcso.htm