Re: Branson and Bigelow to team up for a space hotel?

On 13 Apr 2006 16:48:51 -0700, "William Mook"
<william.mook@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


Cardman wrote:
I guess you missed that SpaceX have their own launch control truck
that they wheel around to their launch sites.

You're the one who has missed it! lol.

Well, their launch facility in the Marshall Islands might have been
built around truck mountable shipping containers, since that's the only
way to get stuff TO the Marshall Islands! lol. But, that doesn't mean
they can easily break it down and move it around. lol.

The Marshall Islands are the exception. Keep an eye out for their
launch truck in their next Vandenberg launch. It should be good for
all launches in North America.

Besides, Musik's SpaceX is a startup and its not clear what they'll end
up doing eventually.

True.

Elon says he can absorb up to three straight
losses before he will fold. So, that means he's got two more shots at
matching the Pegasus air launched rocket! lol.

Elon has since changed his view. To begin with it was three failures
and they would say they did not know what they were doing and to give
up. Now he is in for the long haul and to get it working no matter how
many near term failures happen.

How many he can afford remains to be seen.

While SpaceX's Falcon 1 (which is designed to have a payload capacity
of 0.57 tonne to LEO - so would require 100 flights to amass 56 tonnes
to LEO!) might be transportable by a truck, it certainly cannot be
launched from the back of a 50 ft trailer!

I mentioned the Falcon 1 when you mentioned that no one would make
orbit for less than $5 million. And it is a nice rocket for those 0.57
metric ton payloads.

And, their planned Falcon 9 (which has 24.7 tonnes to LEO capacity
planned for it btw) and masses some 200 tonnes a launch, will take a
more traditional launch complex to field, with more traditional launch
costs!

We will have to see what SpaceX does, when it is far too early to see
how a commercial company will minimise a large rocket launch cost.

But, their planned November launch ended in failure, even with the tiny
Falcon 1 - so, I'd take a wait and see attitude! to see if they could
ever compete with the likes of Pegasus! lol.

Pegasus is their closest rival. I would choose to believe that SpaceX
will make orbit soon enough.

They certainly have some fixed costs per launch,

Yes, especially when they lose the entire vehicle! lol. Btw, did you
know that insurance is a requirement for a commercial space launch in
the US? Do you happen to know what the insurance rate is for SpaceX's
Falcon 1? That's a per launch cost - and its likely to be greater than
$3 million - which I generously gave it in my last post! hahahaha.

SpaceX seem to provide an all inclusive charge, including things like
the ranging cost. I am unsure if this includes insurance or not, but
why would they need $3 million insurance for a $200,000 probe?

I cannot say that I am too up on rocket insurance though.

If you incur costs on a per launch basis, and you increase your launch
rate - you are increasing the rate at which you SPEND money.

No, you have to have an economic size - which says you need 20 to 60
tonnes - and guess what SpaceX AGREES WITH THAT! Lookit their Falcon 9
- with over 26 tonnes to LEO

24.75 metric tons to LEO. And that is the Falcon 9 - S9, which is not
the most cost efficient.

They make this version when some customers will desire to move this
amount of mass at once.

- THAT PROVES MY POINT YOU IGNORANT JERK!
lol.

No it does not. And your childish school ground insults I believe
defines your nature.

As I mentioned the Falcon 9 standard is their best value launcher,
when this can move 9.3 metric tons for $27 million. That equals $2903
per kg.

Their Falcon 9 - S9, that you oddly claim is more economic, can launch
24.75 metric tons for $78 million. That equals a higher value of $3151
per kg.

So if you can break your cargo down into two or three launches then
that provides better value. As for $81 million then SpaceX can move
27.9 metric tons for you using three Falcon 9 standard.

They may even offer a discount on a three purchase.

And if you intend to move something like fuel, then in the same sense
as don't put all your eggs in one basket, then this will provide
acceptable redundancy instead of watching your single jumbo rocket go
up in flames.

So there is proof that bigger is not always better, when in the case
of SpaceX and the Delta and Atlas EELVs, then bigger often means
increased complexity and more difficult handling.

Right, but SpaceX's Falcon 1 is merely a test-bed system leading
eventually to their Falcon 9

It is not just a testing rocket. This is a great rocket for anyone
wanting to put a small payload into LEO. So they are sure to sell many
Falcon 1 launches in the future.

which - oh wait, launches over 26 tonnes to LEO! lol.

24.75 metric tons.

SpaceX provides a range of rockets when different customers will have
different payload requirements.

And that size vehicle is targeted to meet commercial space launch
demands

All of them are.

its not designed for resupply of a lunar expedition.

Certainly. It is however good for LEO work that can support the ISS,
future refueling depot, and maybe even give a hand to NASA's Moon
plans.

GUESS
WHAT? If Elon and other SpaceX engineers were asked to resupply the
Siamese Twin spacecraft I proposed, THEY'D COME UP WITH A 60 TONNE TO
LEO SPACECRAFT, OR TWO LRBS FOR THE GIVEN SPACECRAFT - JUST AS I'VE
PROPOSED - unless of course it was a one shote deal and not worth the
effort to build a custom spaceship. But if we're supposing several
flights per year - then, its clear you'd need a big vehicle- liike the
Falcon 9 - or likely a follow on a Falcon 10 - or two Falcon 9's
converted to LRBs -

That is quite possible. However, such a company would not just
undertake a completely new and very expensive rocket design, when Elon
should have spent well over $100 million even before he has the Falcon
1 reaching orbit.

He would be more likely to push to a five core design involving all of
45 Merlin engines. That design would certainly move a lot more mass,
but you would get an even worse dollar per kg value.

WHICH WAS WHAT I SAID IN THE FIRST PLACE YOUR RUDE, IGNORANT, CLUELESS
MORON!

Even worse dollar per kg value.

Go with many of the smaller and simpler design and they may provide a
nice discount. And their prices seem fully inclusive of all the launch
costs, but I am not sure how insurance factors into this.

For example the best value of the Falcon range is the Falcon 9 at $27
million for 9.3 tonnes into LEO.

The Falcon 9 - S9 has 27.5 tonne capacity - idiot.

24.75 metric tons. I am unfamiliar with your weight measurements.

You can certainly move more mass with
the Falcon 9 Heavy versions but this is not as cost efficient.

Clearly, you don't know what you're talking about so, I really don't
feel compelled to debate you any further. lol.

Larger rockets, like in the case of the EELVs, incur extra costs due
to their complexity and size.

So if you want to be cost efficient and big then you need to keep the
design simple.

You are trying to say there are scaling issues with the basic Falcon 9
design that favor a specific sized vehicle for the mission I've
proposed. This is the beginning of a logical argument.

I have already been providing evidence that big is not always best.

Well, once they actually get something to orbit, assuming they survive
the next two attempts to launch a Falcon 1 - which puts up about the
same as a Pegasus rocket - we might begin debating about their
abilities at that time! lol.

At least they got funding.

They may find
better value in launching more fuel at once, but by using a modular
system they may find better value in multiple smaller launches.

Maybe - but when you start handling 200 tonnes and more of propellant -
and making damn sure the thing won't blow up or fail during launch
(which all the Falcons to date have done so!) you will find your costs
rising to some IRREDUCIBLE LEVEL! - and at that point - you will say,
gee, the only way we can reduce these costs, is to scale the support
mission to the primary lunar mission. DUH! Which is pretty
straightforward engineering and logistical work - which is clearly
beyond your capacity to comprehend! lol.

A hopeless inefficient governmental service supported by commercial
enterprise is not such a bad system. Don't forget that NASA will
always do things for ten times the commercial price. That can add up
to a huge saving in terms of ISS resupply or maintaining a LEO
refueling depot.

NASA knows these things. That is why NASA already have their LEO depot
competition up for offer.

However, if you want to play with physics,

Play with physics at your own risk - as SpaceX learned during their
last launch attempt.

I would more term that a biology mistake. Human error.

then NASA also knows that a
refueling station in LEO would save them a *** load of money by being
able to move far more mass at once.

Depends on the details. NASA has a totally different cost structure in
their civilian program than NSA has in their intelligence program, and
DOD has in their military programs - and no doubt, any private space
launch company (should any ever succeed in achieving anything more than
1,000 kg to orbit) will have their own cost structure - which can be
analyzed by any competent engineer to see what the likely best cost
would be to achieve a given end.

Certainly.

Point is, if someone out there put up enough money to do 100 lunar
flights over a 10 year period - aerospace companies would fall over
themselves to build the APPROPRIATE hardware - depending on the
ENGINEERING DETAILS of the MISSION REQUIREMENTS! lol

No question about it.

Then some commercial company plonks a refueling depot along the way
and says "If you stopped here to refuel then you would not need to
launch as much mass to begin with. And had you planned this to begin
with then your rocket size could have been a lot smaller and your
construction, handling and launch costs would have been greatly
reduced".

While it is true to say that the refueling depot concept has yet to be
proved, but imagine the cost saving had fuel been launched from the
Moon instead.

Who would travel East to West coast USA and carry all their fuel with
them instead of stopping to refuel? LEO is a great place to refuel,
where you just need the commercial market to prove that those non-stop
fuel lugging rockets are a bad idea.

Things would never be the same again.

And a commercially maintained LEO refueling station, even at the cost
of many millions, would be far cheaper than anything NASA could dream
up anyway.

That remains to be seen.

When NASA needed an extra $2 billion to upgrade their four segment SRB
to a five segment SRB then it becomes obvious enough.

You have said that, but you haven't really put any effort at all in
explaining why you believe that.

There is not the available infrastructure.

That's part of your cost structure dude. lol.

And I expect that all the factories and machinery are not in your cost
structure. Just ask Elon how simple plans soon meet technological
problems and schedule delays.

The most mass you can move
at once is slightly below 25 tonnes.

With a Falcon 9 S9 - which is about the size of a big ass ELV- which
will take the same scale launch infrastructure.

We have yet to see how SpaceX improvises.

I am not questioning the technical worth of your plan,

It sure as hell sounds like it.

My point is that there is no one to fund your plan. And without that
funding your plan does not live and it is rather pointless to discuss
what will never be. So it instead makes sense to instead discuss what
the existing and future commercial market can do for you.

As I mentioned then in the middle term future then your real life
tourists won't be going directly from Earth to Moon like is the theme
of your plan. Earth launch vehicle, Lunar transport vehicle, then down
on the Lunar lander. They could well stop at a five-star hotel at each
leg of the trip.

even if I
suspect that you seriously understate the development cost.

I *do* I said that - the costs I estimate are based on commercial
AIRCRAFT development - not civilian spacecraft development! lol. I
said that's aggressive - but I also believe with the right PRIVATE
INITIATIVE - its reasonable to believe it might be achieved!

Yes, and it does sound nice. However, it is also very advanced and
quite risky for anyone to pay your $350 million construction cost.

So if you show that to your billionaires then they would think that
you were dreaming and biting off more than you can chew.

This explains why all commercial companies are working on fairly
simple and easy to understand plans. It is not just about building
hardware that works but about achieving market confidence.

One step at a time. Nice and slow. As if they pulled out a Lunar
tourist plan now then they would be pushing that market confidence too
far and people would doubt them.

They would say "How can you land on the Moon when you have not even
achieved orbit yet?"

That is why your plan will never be funded. You are pushing plans
beyond what the market will currently accept. They have not even
accepted manned orbital yet, but the release of SpaceX's Dragon plan
means that they are coming close.

So maybe now you will shelve your design and instead discuss the
likely route of how the existing commercial market will one day land
tourists on the Moon?

Look at the DC-X - before it crashed. LOL. For less than $60 million
using off-the-shelf hardware - Gaubatz made a good run at a test
program that if McDonnell Douglas weren't acquired by Boeing at that
time - would have actually achieved something near the cost structure I
project for the program I've briefly outlined.

As I said I am not questioning your plan. I am questioning your
concept of putting forwards a plan that the market won't accept.

But understand, it will take a SERIOUS INVESTMENT - not the hobbyist
levels of investment scraped together by Musik and his predecessors.
It will take $1 to $2 billion - with a LASERLIKE FOCUS on the market
you're going to meet - and leveraging every available resource in the
aerospace community! Now $2 billion sounds like a lot

It is when you mentioned a $1.4 billion return.

- but in the
hands of a PRIVATE ENTITY WHO KNOWS WHAT THEY"RE DOING - they can
achieve wonders

That they can. However, when it comes to commercial space then the
non-space supportive rich need not apply, the space supportive poor
need not apply, when only those with both money and a space desire can
achieve anything.

You and I fall in the poor category.

- and guess what, $2 billion is LESS than a single
silicon fab facility, or a single automotive manufacturing plant, or a
single 100,000 b/d refinery - or 1/3 the cost of an offshore drilling
platform - so, its not like its an impossible amount to raise!

It is impossible for your plan. Go establish a company on the stock
market if you don't believe me, when people won't buy into it by the
billions.

This is why the work by the existing alt-space companies are
important, when the market wants clear proof that they can pull this
off. After all they have seen far too many commercial schemes in the
past crash and burn due to a combination of bad idea and lack of
funding.

As once they do have that proof, and they also have a good commercial
plan, then the market will indeed put billions into the project.

And yet you oddly claim that their way is not the best way to do it,
where instead of working to achieve a market break through, and to
obtain serious public funding, then you instead provide a plan to put
billionaires on the Moon.

Market confidence is everything. You get that confidence then you can
get your billions to move serious mass.

I am
simply saying that it will never happen when no organization would
fund it.

No organization will fund serious aerospace ventures because no one has
ever made money doing that,

See. Now let the alt-space companies prove otherwise.

and the government goes out of its way to
create barriers and roadblocks for any such venture because they have
converns over missile proliferation.

The government seems to be coming around. They have already got the
government to relax many regulations.

Branson and Bigelow would consider it a risky
venture for such a high cost.

And despite the positive press they've received they don't have THAT
much money, and specialists on wall street and in the investment
banking community want to see some success at a small level before they
write the big checks!

And after saying all that how can you waste your time drawing up a
"billionaires on the Moon" plan that you know damned well will never
be funded? :-]

Your plan seems very nice to me, but I have never for a minute ever
thought that it would go ahead.

THAT HAS NEVER HAPPENED - YET! But they're
hoping the success with something like the Falcon 1 - will create an
environment favorable to public fundraising -

Certainly.

which will allow MORE EFFICIENT AND LARGER LAUNCHERS to be built! lol.

That is quite possible.

And all those billionaires you mention
would not fund it either when they just won't part with cash before
they see it flying.

Depends on how compelling an argument you make to them, and the
details of how you intend to do it. They're not dopes, which is why
they're where they are. So, its hard to fool them - but its equally
easy to convince them with the right sort of ENGINEERING AND MANAGMENT
AND FINANCIAL WORK - tied together in a meaningful way.

And even following all what you just said then you still cling to the
hope that one of these billionaires is a complete moron. As that is
what they would be to fund an organization that has no track record of
even coming close.

So since it will never be funded,

Oh, ye of little faith! lol. You don't know the basics, how the heck
do you think you know this? lol.

Because i'm a f**king genius. :-]

then it is a better idea to work out
how the future planned commercial infrastructure can "do" the Moon for
you.

Dude, no one's shooting for the moon in a serious way.

I would not say that. It is all a question of obtaining available
resources to improve their space infrastructure. Fuel and water are
two important resources, but refining some ores can assist in future
construction.

So it should be either the Moon or NEAs. You just have to believe that
they won't keep paying the high cost to ship goods from Earth.

SpaceX wants to get a Pegaus rival off the ground

They seem more intent to rival the Atlas and Delta.

and flying to vet themselves before
the investment banking community which will lead to them going public,
and raising money for their later generation Falcons.

I expect that the Falcon 9 will fly before they go public. After all
they have to prove commercial success where it is the larger rockets
that make them their real money.

Public money will pay for the what comes next stage. I don't think
that SpaceX will reveal their hand yet.

That's their hope and that's what they've committed to do.

It makes sound business sense.

Once they're competing against the Deltas and others of the world, and
achieving the cost and volume figures they've projected for the
existing commercial markets - THEN - they might be able to float a
venture to send tourists in space, and to the moon.

Certainly.

AND GUESS WHAT?
Their veihcles will look strangely similar to the vehicle sizes and
throw weights I've outlined here. WHY? Because the engineering data
is the same in both cases. lol.

I would predict even bigger rockets to launch large volumes of people
up to their LEO station/hotel. Once there they can be catch rides to
where ever they desire to go.

The Moon would be easy once they have achieved space based fuel
production.

And as I said if you can make a good plan for a commercial Lunar
lander then just maybe one of these companies would fund and build it.

Or maybe you can fund and build it yourself - with the right strategic
partners who are already operating in the aerospace bsiness.

Now you have the idea. You had better start cutting some hardware now
though if you wish to be part of that future.

And that won't
get done unless and until aerospace firms are operated to fulfill
market needs rather than under cost-plus contracting.

Boeing and LM don't do space cheaply.

Not under government cost plus contracting no - but Boeing builds
competitively priced airplanes

Overlooking the subsidies and that each one of the hundreds of each
commercial aircraft cost like $400 million. I doubt you can term that
"commercial" when there was quite a fight between governments
concerning US and EU manufacturers.

and LM builds competitive commercial satellites -

Government contractor. SpaceDev also build satellites and at a much
more commercial price.

I think you would be asking too much from Boeing and LM, when they
take on the jobs that other companies cannot do and to change a very
high price tag for it.

And yes even the Shuttle would cost in the aircraft range had they
been producing these by the hundreds.

so, there's no reason to believe under the right contract
structure they wouldn't build competitive launchers and service and
support them competitively.

Their business does not work this way. You cannot get commercial
efficiency when they allocate thousands of people to a project, when
they just throw money and people into a problem.

SpaceX is trying to prove what a compact team can do. Their pricing
should be much more efficient when they achieve success. After all the
Falcon 9 will directly compete with the Atlas IV and Delta V, where
the relative costs are reflected in their business model.

You overstate the case.

Really? With Iranian President standing before a gaggle of women
dancing on stage with Uranium cannisters and Al Queda crashing
airliners into US landmarks? lol. You're dreaming again kid.

If BushCo wants to fuel your country on paranoia then don't expect
other countries to join him,

Yes they do place tight control on rocket technology, but commercial
space won't end if Osama Bin Laden crashes SpaceShipTwo into the
Whitehouse.

Trying to be sure, but what they build will have to comport to physical
reality - and the mission requirements. 26 tonnes to LEO is the right
size for a vehicle competing in today's space launch biz. You'll need
bigger vehicles to support a lunar tourism business - that's all! lol.

Direct launch is not the only method. And in the future it could be
labeled as inefficient and ceased as such. The only problem is that
they currently lack the infrastructure to do otherwise.

Launching from Earth is a very big step. Commercial efficiency would
be about minimising the mass that has to take that step. This is even
though rocket sizes could well increase to move more people / cargo at
once.

I would even say that launching fuel from Earth is insane. They only
do it now when this is their only source. So it is no good telling me
that rocket sizes will forever scale up based on the destination, when
you cannot see a future where low cost fuel is available in space to
allow launch companies to use a more efficient method.

That would be the NASA way you're talking about right! lol!

They just like to say nice things without actually doing it.

Because they never get the funding

Well that and they want to fool people with such things like reducing
their price per kg value.

And NASA
certainly knows all about its fixed overheads. Do they care? No...

They LIVE by their overheads - you know that. In the private sector
non performing units get downsized and eliminated. This is why I
believe a private initiative of the right people with the right mix of
experience, with adequate funding - could run rings around NASA.

That they could, including Boeing and LM.

NONE of this changes the physical requirements of the mission.

The future will be different to today. As I said I am sure that they
will have a nice efficient plan to land paying customers on the Moon,
where this plan will be vastly different from your plan.

I'm bored with you - please - we're talking past each other - might I
suggest I will ignore your posts and you will ignore mine in the
future?

Fine.

I merely did a BOE calculation on what a minimal system would
be to do space tourism - and lunar tourism - your comments were
nonsensical to that original statement -

Maybe because I have been trying to point out to you that the market
is not ready to accept such a plan. No investor would have faith in
such a demanding plan and as a result your time spent doing your BOE
calculation can be seen to be unproductive.

As I said your idea is a very nice one, but before you make plans you
need to understand the market.

You said to me that you do not believe that the likes of SpaceX is
doing commercial space the most profitable way. It seems to me that
them taking things one step at a time, in order to obtain market
confidence, cannot be done any better.

Commercial space in order to become reality has to be proved to the
market, when then you will get your billions in investment.

and I tried to explain things
to you in detail - in response you expanded your nonsense to include
apolitical diatribe against NASA -

Well they are already doing a Moon plan.

might Isuggest you not respond and I won't respond - this is pointless -

I agree. I have better things to do.

you're too dumb to get what I'm
saying, and I'm not really interested in the opinions of someone who
doesn't know what they're talking about.

And yet oddly enough you should know that I am right.

Cardman
http://www.cardman.org
http://www.cardman.com
http://www.cardman.co.uk
.