Re: Death Sentence for the Hubble?
From: Eric Chomko (echomko_at__at_polaris.umuc.edu)
Date: 03/10/05
- Next message: Eric Chomko: "Re: Death Sentence for the Hubble?"
- Previous message: zawadzki_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism in Science Classes""
- In reply to: Jeff Findley: "Re: Death Sentence for the Hubble?"
- Next in thread: Jeff Findley: "Re: Death Sentence for the Hubble?"
- Reply: Jeff Findley: "Re: Death Sentence for the Hubble?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 18:28:24 +0000 (UTC)
Jeff Findley (jeff.findley@ugs.nojunk.com) wrote:
: "Eric Chomko" <echomko_at_@polaris.umuc.edu> wrote in message
: news:d0ng3r$2i2d$1@news.ums.edu...
: > Jeff Findley (jeff.findley@ugs.nojunk.com) wrote:
: >
: > : Eric seems to have missed this. It is my hope that a properly designed
: > : (reusable) commercial launch vehicle could reduce launch costs by at
: least
: > : two orders of magnitude.
: >
: > No I haven't missed it! If space is so profitable, then where is the
: > private industry? Bigelow's hotel and the whole space tourism looks good
: > on paper but I don't see venture capitalists flocking to throw cash your
: > way.
: Partly because investors will need to be convinced that such cost reductions
: really are possible. The "conventional wisdom" is that only government
: sponsored agencies (i.e. US, Russia, and China) have the resources to put
: people into space, so you've got to convince investors that this isn't the
: case. SpaceShip One went a small way towards this goal, but there were
: still many people who said it wasn't a "real" spaceship since it was
: suborbital.
Not just that, the term "stunt" was bandied about and I liken SS1 to Craig
Breedlove and his jetcar runs. Cool stuff but they never spawned an
industry.
: The other thing you've got to fight is that this will be a very long term
: investment. Most investors today want to show returns on their investments
: in days, months, or a few quarters. Lowering the cost of access to LEO
: won't happen in that short timeframe.
I agree, but hopefully something will eventually come out of it.
: > Two orders of magnitude? So instead of folks like Tito paying $20,000,000
: > for a space vacation others can pay $200,000? I guess that is Branson's
: > dream.
: Exactly. $200k is starting to come down to a price that someone in the
: upper middle class could afford for a "once in a lifetime experience". Note
: that this is essentially what Virgin Galactic is planning on initially
: charging for suborbital flights. If Virgin can make money in the suborbital
: market at this price, the orbital market will be even larger at the same
: price.
: I think that Virgin Galactic will need to show investors that there is money
: in suborbital tourism before they'll start pouring "real money" into
: companies working on orbital vehicles.
No doubt. But wouldn't an existing infrastructure make space tourism more
viable? For example, I have no desire to go into space per se, but I sure
as heck would love to visit Tranquility Base on the Moon and see the
remains of the LEM, Armstrong and Aldrin's footsteps preserved under
plexiglass and the US flag sticking out of the lunar surface. Now THAT
would be cool!
: > : If this is indeed the case, any company with such
: > : a vehicle could gobble up much of the existing launch market in short
: order.
: > : Furthermore, such a reduction in costs would certainly open up new
: markets
: > : as well (including orbital tourism).
: >
: > I'm sure NASA and other agencies would love to reduce lauch costs. Hell
: > launches as a COTS product is definitely a goal.
: Parts of NASA may want this, but other parts would like to see a shuttle
: derived vehicle replace the shuttle, so that they can keep as many jobs at
: KSC as possible.
Space as an industry isn't going to shrink. NASA may want to keep
employees at KSC but they can't expect it.
: A truly reusable vehicle that lowers lauch costs by two
: orders of magnitude simply won't need a standing army the size the shuttle
: does (it can't, or it won't be that cheap). So a really cheap launch
: vehicle will "hurt" NASA by forcing the layoffs of much of the shuttle
: workforce (i.e the standing army).
Not necessarily. NASA is going to get their $15-$16 billion a year. If
launch costs go down, then NASA will simply need to create new work via
more proposals to expand cheaper launch costs into new endeavors. NASA and
the government in general should never strive to stifle progress in order
to preserve employment. It is the same argument about robots replcaing
human workers. Make the replaced humans manage the robots in order to
increase productivity.
: > : The only losers in such a scenario are the existing launch providers who
: > : will loose billions of dollars in revenues due to the lost business.
: With
: >
: > Yes, just like IBM lost billions due to the small computer market. Hurt um
: > so bad that they don't even exist anymore. Opps...
: They still exist, but they don't make money on mainframes anymore, do they?
False! Initially, IBM made a bundle on the PC and eventually the clone
market drove them out of the PC market. IBM came BACK to mainframes and
other computers (midsize and large servers) too expensive for the average
user and as a result sales and revenue are back up.
: They had to evolve or die. They chose to evolve. The big aerospace
: companies getting billions in revenue through their expendable launch
: vehicles will have to do the same.
But it will take small companies in the space industry to make the
PC-version of a launch vehicle to get anyone's attention. Who is the Apple
Computer company in the space industry? Where are the Steve Jobs and Steve
Wozniaks of the cheap access to space? You?
Well whoever it is they stand to make a bundle. And whining about NASA,
L-Mart, Boeing, etc. ain't going to do squat! Like the message in the
movie "Field of Dreams", 'build it and they will come', makes a helova lot
of sense WRT to CATS.
Perhaps a few ticked off L-Mart employees or Boeing employees who's
cheaper designs are being ignored will spin off and create a new company.
Think Zilog and Intel, Z-80 vs. 8080.
: > : Eric's proposal, the DOD program to build a new "space plane" would go
: to
: > : those very companies who stand to loose the most from cheaper access to
: > : space. No doubt they would run such a program much like Delta IV and
: Atlas
: > : V, with similar "reductions" in launch costs.
: >
: > Do you honestly think that NASA and other governemnt agencies wouldn't
: > want to use your cheaper access to space? That they somehow like paying
: > more for launches?
: As I said earlier, parts of NASA doesn't want costs to go down. You can't
: reduce costs without reducing the size of the standing army and that means
: job custs. Government agencies are notorious for fighing cuts that reduce
: their workforce.
And like I said before, YOU'RE WRONG! You're providing an excuse. Excuses
don't cut it! You make a true CATS vehicle and it will get noticed!
: This is one reason that seemingly crazy ideas like an SRB derived launch
: vehicle are seen coming out of NASA. Keeping the SRB alive means not only
: keeping the jobs of the people who work on the SRB, but it also means
: keeping the VAB open, the crawlers operational, and the shuttle pads
: operational. This means that an SRB launch vehicle *can't* be much cheaper
: than the shuttle, because you're keeping much of the shuttle's
: infrastructure and standing army around to make it happen.
Right now the shuttle is the only game in town other than the Russians and
Chinese, and they only once. The gap between SS1 and the shuttle needs to
be closed to some degree in order for your standing army to disapear.
: This standing army and infrastructure is one big reason that the shuttle
: isn't really cheaper to operate than the Saturn V. Note that it uses much
: of the same (albeit modified) infrastructure. Even worse, much of the
: office space in the VAB had to be vacated due to the solids (and
: hypergolics?) of the shuttle. Entire new buildings had to be built to
: replace this essentially lost office space.
I can't help thinking about comparing a row boat to an aircraft carrier.
THAT is the same as SS1 and the shuttle.
What exactly do you want?
: > Geez, I'm the one accused of being a conspiracy monger and here you are
: > convinced that the current group of government contractors in space are
: > keeping small companies out just to keep the price of launches high. Is
: > that what you believe?
: Actually this has happened. When investors go to ask NASA people if a
: startup's ideas are any good, what do you think they say? Certainly it
: depends on who in NASA they ask, but the conventional wisdom at NASA is that
: spaceflight is necessarily expensive. The startups are going against this
: wisdom and are in many ways trying to compete with NASA.
Yep and at one time the conventional wisdom about computers was that all
that were needed was 5! And that was from Thomas Watson of IBM!!
: > I have news for you, if you had something then they'd use it. Further, if
: > you had something, you'd be showing it. Since nothing exists, all you
: > have is shaking fists and whines.
: Many startups do not seek or accept government funding. You should find out
: why this is true before you start saying I'm making up conspiracies.
Well I'm sure that Jobs and Wozniak were happy to sell their Apple IIs to
anyone that was willing to buy them.
: I think that keeping SpaceShip One secret until it was almost completely
: developed was a very smart move. The only way they were able to do this was
: because they had an investor with deep pockets. Once you start seeking out
: funding from many sources, your plans start to become very public and open
: to scrutiny from those that have a vested interest in the failure of those
: plans.
That tends to be the way of many a lot of things. The more that is
publicly known the more likely of failure.
: People will do a lot to protect their phoney baloney jobs, just watch
: Blazing Saddles. ;-)
I might agree with you regarding the oil industry. Could you imagine free
energy and what that would do to the oil indsutrialists? Hell they
wouldn't be rich anymore as their source of income would literally
disappear.
Eric
: Jeff
: --
: Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.
- Next message: Eric Chomko: "Re: Death Sentence for the Hubble?"
- Previous message: zawadzki_at_yahoo.com: "Re: Draft: "Why We Should Teach About Creationism in Science Classes""
- In reply to: Jeff Findley: "Re: Death Sentence for the Hubble?"
- Next in thread: Jeff Findley: "Re: Death Sentence for the Hubble?"
- Reply: Jeff Findley: "Re: Death Sentence for the Hubble?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|
