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


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

If it really can be structured that way then I'm all for it.

I think it will be a long time before the money becomes available to
fund it, however. But good luck and godspeed.

Tom

.

Quantcast