Re: Space Access Update #112 9/19/05

Tom Cuddihy wrote:
> Len wrote:
> > Tom Cuddihy wrote:
......
> Perhaps. But until one's built, it's all hypothetical. In fact, until a
> rigorous, detailed design is studied, it's only marginally better than
> back of the envelope. Given that every spacelaunch project has cost
> more to implement than even the most realistic designers expected going
> in, the liklihood is that you're drastically underestimating a
> reasonable break-even delivery price.

I agree that the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
However, this works both ways. Moreover, IMO, the current
data base for space transportation "should cost" is
terribly distorted. Accordingly, the possibility of
low-cost should not automatically be dismissed.
>
> Even Musk has been shocked at how much more development cost has been
> than he expected--and he isn't even pushing the bleeding edge of
> technology with stuff like H2/LOX engines or reentry issues as a TSTO
> reusable must.

Airplane-like reusability may possibly reduce development,
as well as, operational costs. The cost of developing a
new airplane with the throw-away approaches used for space
launch would result in astronomical costs in the aviation
world. Aside from this, Elon's actual costs have been
quite low, even though he might originally have thought
they would be lower. The costs that I project for the
Space Van 2010 are not inconsistent with Elon's experience.
>
.......

> > Aviation is probably considerably easier than space. However,
> > space is probably not nearly as hard as the manned space flight
> > Mafia has made it out to be.
>
> That's a comment that was good, meaty fare when Shuttle and ISS were
> the future of NASA c. 1995, and the LEO comm sat market was going to
> blow the old ways of doing space launch out of the sky, but 10 years
> later is rather stale, considering there are now commercial companies
> doing space launch with little or no advance government funding, and
> especially seeing that they have run into problems of the same
> technical magnitude as previous government programs, albeit with less
> financial impact. Space launch is hard. It may be easier now than it
> was 20 years ago. But it's still hard.

The examples you pick are interesting. When Rockwell
won the Shuttle, I quit Rockwell--partly because of
"conflict of interest" (I was head of fighter systems,
but was independently pursuing space launch)--but mainly
out of disgust for the lack of potential of the Space
Shuttle for fulfilling its cost promises. *** Bearman
at USAF/SAMSO quit the Air Force although he was selected
for full Colonel. One of his main reasons for quitting
was the refusal of NASA to consider the Boeing RASV/
Windjammer (my concept) as an alternative to the Space
Shuttle. With respect to big LEO telecom, I tried to
pursuade Motorola before they started serious investment
that their cost model was all wrong. I maintained
that they needed much lower cost space transport to make
a big-LEO system economically viable. They said they
hoped that I would be around when it was time to
replace satellites; otherwise, I was not able to budge
them.
......
> The current state of the commercial launch industry may sadden you. But
> the situation exists the way it does because of the military and
> strategic conditions of the Cold War, not because of some evil
> corporate /military plot. Commercial space launch was doomed from the
> first beep Sputnik sent over the United States, because strategic
> necessity forced a launcher development far in advance of commercial
> technical capability. Sunk cost of strategic launchers then
> artificially induced a satellite market born premature. The commercial
> industrial world is only now catching up to the 60s, and yet
> ironically, many of those who see that the only answer to cheaper space
> flight is to allow the free market to do its thing, simultaneously
> advocate for some kind of forced commercial approach to NASA and the
> military's approach to space. It's like, the free market's ok, as long
> as THEIR pet project wins the government contract. What's wrong with
> letting commercial efforts already underway fight to survive like
> everything else, and then letting them compete for government projects
> as they gain the proven capability to do so?

I do not disagree with what you say in the first part
of the above paragraph. However, you do not understand
what I am advocating (see the market guarantee concept
that I have proposed under "NASA Unveils Plans for Lunar
Architecture" or similar title).
.......
>
> I have no disagreements as to the cause of the current high cost of
> launch. I strongly disagree with any plan to force NASA to chose a
> particular method of accomplishing their goal (beyond LEO human
> exploration) that is not a direct result of their needs. Forcing NASA
> to build a LEO fuel depot, fund a new reusable launcher, or fund some
> other method of launch assist would only perpetuate the current
> circumstances of the launch industry. The industry must be allowed to
> evolve as it will and NASA brought on board only as capabilities
> justifiable with NASA's goals are extant. That means launched and
> proven, not on paper.
>
> In the meantime, there's no reason for NASA to be forced to fund
> someone else's private vision. NASA launchers, while potentially
> inefficient compared to smaller commercial launchers, will at least
> spend government money 100% in the direction of mission
> accomplishment--something that has been missing from NASA budgets since
> about 1973.

The market guarantee plan that I advocate involves no
payment for promises, but only delivery. It does not
force NASA to do anything; it only enables NASA to take
advantage of great potential enhancement to their
exploration plans that NASA does not currently adopt
because they do not believe it is feasible. The plan
would not cost the government anything unless the free market
actually delivers.
>
> Tom

Best regards,
Len (Cormier)
PanAero, Inc.
x@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (change x to len)
http://www.tour2space.com

.

Quantcast