Re: Vision of the three Rs: Regular, Reliable and Reusable
- From: "Totorkon" <aertrion@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 2 Mar 2007 19:34:44 -0800
On Mar 2, 12:09 pm, "Len" <l...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 1, 10:36 pm, fairwa...@xxxxxxxxx (Derek Lyons) wrote:While the federal government funded early aviation with contracts for
"Len" <l...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Feb 26, 5:13 pm, fairwa...@xxxxxxxxx (Derek Lyons) wrote:
"Michael Turner" <l...@xxxxxxx> wrote:I don't know where the idea of "subsidy" got into the "guaranteed
Derek, I didn't quite follow a lot of what you just said here, but
maybe that's my fault.
market" idea.
The "guaranteed market" is what kicked off the thread. Iain (and
others) have tried to make it look like a subsidy - but calling a tail
a leg changes not it's nature.
I fail to understand the lack of desirablilty of a market guarantee
program that would not cost anything unless and until one or more companies
actually delivered water, propellants, and/or propulsion modules for a
transportation cost to LEO of $1000/kg or less.
Nobody is objecting to a program that costs 'nothing' (noting in
passing the impossibility of such) Len. I am objecting to a program
that costs money with little chance of providing a positive return.
(I.E. when such payloads do start launching.) It's dishonest as hell
on your part to suggest otherwise - I thought better of you.
I don't think either one us believes in
supporting a program that has little chance
of providing a positive return. Where we
seem to disagree is whether or not the
program under discussion can provide a
positive return. I obviously believe it can,
you don't seem to believe it can.
I believe a positive return is likely and that
a market guarantee program can be good
for three reasons: a) it should encourage
the commercial development of one or more
space transports capable of frequent, reliable,
low-cost tranportation to LEO; b) it should
assure Mike Griffin and NASA planners
that low-cost propellants at a LEO depot
(either with direct transport of propellants
or by electrolysis of water) are a reallistic
basis for planning; and c) it can result in
large amounts of water, propellants, and/or
propulsion modules actually being available
at low cost for a "main-line" space exploration
program. I believe this can make commercial,
profit-making sense without any price subsidy
--thus assuring a long-term availability of
low-cost propellants, etc. in LEO.
IIRC, Mike Griffin has said that
he would like to see a commercial fueling
station in orbit, but that he cannont
justify direct support of such a fueling
station, since he must currently place
his bets on what he believes is a lower
risk, assured--if less ambitious--space
exploration program.
I wish that Mike Griffin--or his spokesperson
--were participating in this discussion. I
would welcome a confirmation or denial of
what I think he really thinks about the matter
under discussion.
In posts in other threads, I have advocated
flexibility in contingent, market-guarantee
contracts, in order to assure that we don't
end up with a lot of useless payloads in
LEO. I have suggested earlier that initial
contracts might be for experimental payloads
to determine what type of payloads in what
type of orbit might be most useful. Contracts
for follow-on flights would have to be flexible
enough to accommodate the knowledge
gained in the experimental phase of the
program. The important thing is that
potential investors in a commercial space
transport would have some assurance of
getting at least some minimum return on
their investment, if the concept they are
backing actually fulfills its promises.
Otherwise, the government would make
no payments under that particular market
guarantee contract.
A market guarantee program would merely correct a distortion created by
bad government policy.
No - it perpetuates the distortion by continuing the idea that primary
source of funding for activities in space is the goverment.
Government funding is the only game in town
for space exploration for the foreseeable future.
COTS Phase II recognizes commercial space
transportation as being a legitimate and potentially
important aspect of government operations in
space. NACA would not have had it any other
way. Hopefully, NASA is getting back to some
of its NACA roots. That's why they got the job
in the first place.
Len
airmail delivery, passenger travel soon followed because of existing
demand for fast travel. There is no comparable use for space with the
exception of communications satellites.
Government must fund both supply of launch services and demand for
it. No private entity would risk the investment unless it was assured
that it would have government contracts, so you are back to square
one. Investment in a startup like Spacex is justified given the large
downpayment put up by Elon Musk, but ultimatly NASA is just going to
have to develope a reusable launch system, or atleast a first stage
RLV. It will also have to create projects to use its launch capacity
that can win public and congressional support. I don't think a fuel
depot can do this.
BTW, just how much propellant are you thinking of putting in orbit?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Vision of the three Rs: Regular, Reliable and Reusable
- From: Rand Simberg
- Re: Vision of the three Rs: Regular, Reliable and Reusable
- From: Len
- Re: Vision of the three Rs: Regular, Reliable and Reusable
- References:
- Re: Vision of the three Rs: Regular, Reliable and Reusable
- From: Derek Lyons
- Re: Vision of the three Rs: Regular, Reliable and Reusable
- From: Len
- Re: Vision of the three Rs: Regular, Reliable and Reusable
- Prev by Date: Re: Fusion Propulsion
- Next by Date: Re: Vision of the three Rs: Regular, Reliable and Reusable
- Previous by thread: Re: Vision of the three Rs: Regular, Reliable and Reusable
- Next by thread: Re: Vision of the three Rs: Regular, Reliable and Reusable
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
