Re: Vision of the three Rs: Regular, Reliable and Reusable

On Mar 11, 4:26 am, "Michael Turner" <l...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Just as I was despairing of ever seeing a semblance of rationality
from Fred, he suddenly gets halfway rational on us. OK.

On Mar 10, 12:04 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

:>What do YOU propose, Rand?
:
:I propose getting a private space passenger industry going.

This is an outstanding proposal and I would love to see it. However,
it's rather like belling the cat; who's to do it (and how)?

Basically, I like it too. A lot. However, the
detailed implementation would be important
--and this could be good or bad.


Look at one of Rand's proposals (which admittedly assume political
will that probably isn't there now, and may never be there): the
government buys a lot of tickets, and offers them for resale. Let's
assume that the ticket price (in the initial lot, anyway) is
reasonable with respect to projected costs.

So who launches the customers for those rides? Whoever *can*. It's
not the government's place to say.

Yes, the details would have to spell
out some plan that does not have the
government, rather than the marketplace,
picking winners.

Where's
it going (passengers usually have a destination)?

Destination was a stumbling block for me
for years. And, eventually, a destination is
going to be essential. However, in the
nearer future, I think that about 11 orbits
in an oversize cabin that allows for
substantial zero-g play for about 17 hours
should be saleale--at least at a low enough
price, e.g. $200,000 per seat. That is what
we are proposing without any subsidy. It
appears that there is some market at this
price for just a couple of minutes of zero-g,
strapped in over just one piece of geography.


This is a logistical problem to be solved by whoever can. If
launching *and* housing customers on the same craft is what works
initially, fine -- that's still a higher rate of launch, with the
economies and the accelerated learning curves that come with a higher
rate. However, with enough customers, it may be profitable for
someone to expend some number of launches to provide semi-permanent
amenities at a "space hotel", so that the craft to be orbited doesn't
have to carry the amenities load every time, and can either be
smaller, or carry more passengers. Who would provide that hotel? The
slate isn't blank, even now: there's Bigelow Aerospace.

How to get the
volume up to the point where it doesn't require a government behind
it?

Again, the importance of the details.
I think there should be some elasticity to
the guarantee/subsidy in order to encourage
the lowest cost/price. This is what I propose
for the water/propellant market guarantee. In
the case of tourism support, I think the price
that tickets are resold should be tied to the
cost the government pays for the tickets.
The amount of tickets that the government
would buy from any one company would also
be related elasticly to what the government
pays for the tickets.

Presumably, any subsidy along these lines would be based on market
projections in the first place.

And market projections--surprise--seem to be
a strong function of price.

:If the
:government wants to help with that by purchasing large numbers of
:tickets for resale on the market, ...

I don't see that 'helping', since once the government stops doing that
(and they will - it will be viewed as wasted money by virtually
everyone) you're dead.

It's the same problem that we would have
with guaranteeing or subsidizing a market for
water/propellants.

That's why I am leery of price subsidies. A
market guarantee without price subsidies
would be quite sustainable. The main function
of the government guarantee would be to
assure investors that a minimum market is
available to a particular concept, so long as
that concept is actually capable of fulfilling its
promises. For that reason, performance-contingent
contracts for specific concepts might be
essential.

We're tacitly assuming political will, so we're also assuming that
it's not regarded as wasted money by most. THAT is a stretch, I'll
admit. I'd say the subsidy could be tapered off, if profits start to
appear, and look maintainable with ever-lower subsidies. If not --
well, ditch it. The policy analysis was wrong, not much harm done.

If price subsidies are eschewed altogether,
then the money is not wasted. It only acts
as a catalyst. It is important to distinguish
between market guarntees and price subsidies.


Meanwhile, by pouring all the money into that,
it isn't being spent doing other things that might be useful.

The converse side of this is that pouring
money into encouraging the commercial
development of a space transport should
result in a greatly enhanced capability for
doing a lot of other things that might be
useful.

Perhaps so (I haven't sided with any single subsidy idea; I haven't
even committed myself to the idea of subsidies). However, if there's
something we all agree on here, besides the desirability of a Vision
for Space Exploitation of some kind, it's that costs of launch to
orbit are the biggest single obstacle. To a good first approximation,
it shouldn't really matter whether you're launching lots of human
beings or lots of BBQ-FlavR pretzels -- offering subsidies for the
launch of a lot of stuff, on the assumption that costs to go to LEO
are susceptible to economies of scale in production and operation.
Natural profit-seeking among firms should also lead to R&D required to
do ever better in reducing costs.

Yes.

:... or by finally getting serious about
:operationally responsive spacelift, all the better.

This one is what I'd like to see the government doing more of, rather
than wasting its money subsidizing someone's favourite 'solution'.

I don't know if ELV or RLV is right. I don't know if TSTO or SSTO is
right. I'm a fan of launching bulk mass and hardened cargo from Earth
to orbit using ground-based accelerators, but I'll be the first to
admit this is highly speculative. The arguments have gone on forever
-- so why not let markets decide, by creating a market that doesn't
really exist, if that's politically possible?

Politically possible? I dunno. Yes to everything
else.

Let's get back into the 'X-plane' business and develop technologies.
Where are all the follow-on test vehicles to the stuff that was being
talked about 20 years ago?

X-planes--not the Venture Star category--and
government encouragement of private development
are, IMO, quite compatible. It's the NACA way.

I think in some sense, the 'X-plane' business has been supplanted by
private capital (Branson, Bezos, etc.)

Government X-planes should develop technolgy.
Private X-planes should develop operational
systems.

Lots of people are saying 'subsidize RLV',

Yeah, but NOT ME. I've never specified *how*. I don't think anyone
should.

Agreed.

but in the short term (at
least) that might not be the best approach to an expanded space
presence. Expendables might be cheaper and it's establishing the
presence that drives everything else, since without it most of the
economic justification for everything else goes away.

Fine. Then take half of NASA's budget, make it available for offsets
of costs to orbit for launch firms, and let the market figure out
whether expendables are really the way to go. If the result is
dramatically lower costs to orbit, whether with expendables or RLVs,
and sustainable demand begins to materialize, taper off the
subsidies. If not, well, look at it this way: since you created only
a pool of money, you just have to drain that swamp at the end. A pool
of bodies -- government pork and large bureaucracies -- is not so
easily drained.

IMO, we only need to BORROW half of NASA's
budget--with full replenishment of what money
is designated for market guarantees. This
would seem to be politically possible outside
of the existing NASA/industry launch vehicle
complex. It should be possible even within
the complex, if the people inside of the complex
can be convinced of the even greater opportunities
that would exist with truly low-cost, frequent,
reliable access to LEO.

Len

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

That's a funny line, but remember that Shaw was a socialist, and
that's probably what he was talking about. I'm much more of a liberal
(politically) than Rand, but in this case, we seem to be on something
like the same page about space policy.

-michael turner


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Vision of the three Rs: Regular, Reliable and Reusable
    ... government buys a lot of tickets, ... reasonable with respect to projected costs. ... initially, fine -- that's still a higher rate of launch, with the ... and look maintainable with ever-lower subsidies. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: The Great Ethanol Scam
    ... ADM's involvement is merely part of the market reaction to a mistake ... government trying to increase production for sale to the Soviet Union ... Actually the ethanol subsidies are a different issue than the farm ... I realize that ethanol is a bit of a special case. ...
    (misc.fitness.weights)
  • Re: A380 arriving in the northeast?
    ... to give launch subsidies Airbus. ... Well as the Wall Street Journal pointed out, 8/10 Airbus Parent EADS gets ... more defense business (from government) than Boeing does. ... Meanwhile Airbus enjoys massive government subsidies such as risk free ...
    (rec.aviation.piloting)
  • Re: A380 arriving in the northeast?
    ... to give launch subsidies Airbus. ... Well as the Wall Street Journal pointed out, 8/10 Airbus Parent EADS gets ... more defense business (from government) than Boeing does. ... Meanwhile Airbus enjoys massive government subsidies such as risk free ...
    (rec.aviation.piloting)
  • Q&A: Subsidies should be tailed off slowly
    ... Subsidies should be tailed off slowly ... Malaysia Kini - Kuala Lumpur,Malaysia ... The government has introduced five economic corridors and are ... people who get jobs spend money, ...
    (soc.culture.malaysia)