Re: Death Sentence for the Hubble?

From: Rand Simberg (simberg.interglobal_at_org.trash)
Date: 02/27/05 

Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 22:24:18 GMT

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 19:17:41 GMT, in a place far, far away, Fred J.
McCall <fmccall@earthlink.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

>simberg.interglobal@org.trash (Rand Simberg) wrote:
>
>:On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 15:33:48 GMT, in a place far, far away, Fred J.
>:McCall <fmccall@earthlink.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
>:such a way as to indicate that:
>:
>:>:>:>Of course there is, but we're talking about developing systems that it
>:>:>:>is claimed are easy to do and will have a huge market (which is a big
>:>:>:>piece of the rest of the business plan).
>:>:>:
>:>:>:But up until now, the "huge market" part generated a great deal of
>:>:>:skepticism. That's what's kept it from happening, not the
>:>:>:technological side.
>:>:>
>:>:>That doesn't seem to track, either. One need merely look at the
>:>:>number of current launches. Being able to come up with a reliable and
>:>:>inexpensive launcher would quite obviously allow you to capture a lot
>:>:>of those existing launches, even if lower launch costs didn't enlarge
>:>:>the market.
>:>:
>:>:That doesn't constitute enough business to amortize the development
>:>:costs. You need a much bigger market than that. The claim is that
>:>:it's easy to do, not that it's inexpensive to do. It still takes a
>:>:lot of up-front investment.
>:>
>:>If it takes that much up front investment in "development costs", then
>:>it is *NOT* "easy".
>:
>:What's not "easy" is raising the money, not designing and developing
>:the launch system. The latter isn't a big deal, given the appropriate
>:investment.
>
>If it's "not a big deal" then why does it cost so much, Rand?

Major aerospace development programs cost a lot. Even developing an
airliner takes billions. That doesn't mean that it's technically
difficult. There's very little technical risk to the 7E7.

>We appear to be using different definitions for 'easy'. Yours seems
>to be "I don't need to invent any totally new technologies or engage
>in magic". Mine is "I can put it together out of off-the-shelf
>parts".

We do so appear. I am using it in the first sense, because many
people seem to mistakenly think that we must "invent totally new
technologies or engage in magic" to develop cheap launch. We don't.
We just have to make the investment.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Death Sentence for the Hubble?
    ... >:the launch system. ... Major aerospace development programs cost a lot. ... There's very little technical risk to the 7E7. ... technologies or engage in magic" to develop cheap launch. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Death Sentence for the Hubble?
    ... > Major aerospace development programs cost a lot. ... There's very little technical risk to the 7E7. ... We will use off-the-shelf parts wherever feasible, but there is still a great ... off-the-shelf is the required technologies. ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Death Sentence for the Hubble?
    ... > Major aerospace development programs cost a lot. ... There's very little technical risk to the 7E7. ... We will use off-the-shelf parts wherever feasible, but there is still a great ... off-the-shelf is the required technologies. ...
    (sci.space.policy)