Re: Space Access Update #112 9/19/05
- From: "Len" <len@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 29 Oct 2005 08:08:41 -0700
Dr John Stockton wrote:
> JRS: In article <ti92m1t86lp51j6pvnsdpoek1cb38pgv08@xxxxxxx>, dated
> Thu, 27 Oct 2005 19:39:14, seen in news:sci.space.policy, Monte Davis
> <monte.davis@xxxxxxxxxxx> posted :
> >
> >Without such a loan, though, the challenge is to find an economically
> >viable path *from* where we are today *to* the promised land of CATS.
> >It's a tough challenge that's almost certainly going to require a long
> >series of incremental nibbles at the problem from technology AND
> >politics AND alt.space entrepreneurial economics... not a "silver
> >bullet" breakthrough from any one angle.
>
> That is why it is wrong to concentrate on designing (which in this field
> means "not very expensive") to do cheaply such as : orbit loads of
> tourists; supply ISS; launch satellites; launch interplanetary vehicles
> or components.
>
> Instead, the aim should be primarily, by showing the design, to get
> enough money to develop, build, and launch it, and secondarily that its
> success should advance the cause of affordable access in some way or
> another. If the first is achieved, the second is near-inevitable.
While I generally agree that the main path should be
going for the money, one should not dismiss easily the
importance of conceptual design early in the game. This
is true for two reasons: 1) A good design may--not always
--help get the money; 2) Once serious money starts to be
spent, then all opportunity for thinking on the conceptual
level is gone; all effort then goes into detail design of
the existing concept, right or wrong.
This is one of the things that has gone so wrong with
procurement. There used to be far more opportunity for
relatively free-structured exploratory study. Now the
emphasis is on total package procurement, without ever
figuring out a basically good approach. What passes for
exploratory study these days tends to be limited to someone's
preconceived notion of a good approach to a basic need or
problem--rather than a wide-open investigation of the basic
need itself (contrary to OMB A-109).
Best regards,
Len (Cormier)
PanAero, Inc.
x@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (change x to len)
http://www.tour2space.com
>
> One need not otherwise bother about cheapness; if the money to do it is
> neither obtained from Government, nor obtained by the major business
> entities, then cheapness is a necessary consequence.
>
> --
> © John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
> Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links;
> Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
> No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Space Access Update #112 9/19/05
- From: Tom Cuddihy
- Re: Space Access Update #112 9/19/05
- References:
- Re: Space Access Update #112 9/19/05
- From: Len
- Re: Space Access Update #112 9/19/05
- From: Fred J . McCall
- Re: Space Access Update #112 9/19/05
- From: Len
- Re: Space Access Update #112 9/19/05
- From: Monte Davis
- Re: Space Access Update #112 9/19/05
- From: Len
- Re: Space Access Update #112 9/19/05
- From: Derek Lyons
- Re: Space Access Update #112 9/19/05
- From: Tom Cuddihy
- Re: Space Access Update #112 9/19/05
- From: Jeff Findley
- Re: Space Access Update #112 9/19/05
- From: Monte Davis
- Re: Space Access Update #112 9/19/05
- Prev by Date: Re: Is Crew Launch Vehicle Too Big?
- Next by Date: Re: Is Crew Launch Vehicle Too Big?
- Previous by thread: Re: Space Access Update #112 9/19/05
- Next by thread: Re: Space Access Update #112 9/19/05
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
