Re: We can meet all our needs through space development

On Jan 30, 9:25 pm, Einar <eina...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jan 30, 3:08 pm, Willie.Moo...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:





On Jan 30, 9:44 am, Ian Parker <ianpark...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 30 Jan, 12:18, Einar <eina...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jan 29, 2:13 pm, "Mike Combs"

<mikeco...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Einar" <eina...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:b8db2464-6d7e-47c1-b641-870a89468e4e@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

This sounds more like one would hope that the world at 2099
might be like.

Write a schy fy book on this, a suggestion.

It will most certainly remain a very-distant science-fiction-y concept for
as long as we choose to view it as such.

--

Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By all that you hold dear on this good Earth
I bid you stand, Men of the West!
                                                     Aragorn

Now, SpaceX is still struggling with theyr rocket, Ares is in
development problems...and yet those are a lot less ambitious than
what is suggested here something with 500 ton LEO capability.

It´s plans like these with everything assumed to go right that aren´t
believable.

I don't understand Ares. How is it that almost 40 years ago Armstrong
and Aldrin went to the Moon on top of a Saturn 5? In what respects is
Ares "better" than Saturn? Certainly not in $/Kg.

  - Ian Parker- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Its a function of the amount of money spent and how wisely it is
spent.

I have given you my ideas here.  Einar says they're not believable and
compares what I have proposed with something on a whole different
order - apples and oranges.

Saturn V cost $9 billion and 6 years to develop - using results of DOD
programs on the E1/F1 an J2 engines with 13 vehicles built and flown.

I propose taking an ET sized airframe propelled by an annular
aerospike engine, with an RS-68 pumpset (3) in each engine - to
produce a ET sized booster- stretched 40% - massing 1,000 tons at lift
off, creating 1,400 tons thrust at lift off - operating 7 at a time to
create a three stage operation to loft 500 tons to LEO.  They will
have an advanced thermal protection system and be fully recoverable
with downrange tow planes picking up the pieces.

I estimate that this program will cost $6 billion to complete in 4
years and result in 4 vehicles that put 500 metric tons into orbit
each launch at a cost of $70 million ($10 million per element per
flight)

Why does this seem infeasible?  What specifically is infeasible about
it?

Mind you, you are suggesting a difficult and expensive development
program.

No I am proposing a large number of interrelated programs with a
common vision. The development of our interplanetary frontier.

You are actually suggesting a good number of expensive and
difficult development programs.

Yes, with each opportunity structured as a separate finance company
using a project financing model.

You may have some money, but you are not a trillionaire.

There are 9.5 million millionaires in the world. Collectively they
control $40 trillion. This is largely liquid. They are contnually
looking for good returns on this money. Of this approximately 20% is
earmarked for credible high risk investments.

My success with the eight projects I am currently sponsoring, will
allow me to sposor other more risky projects going forward. I will
also maintain ownership by putting in the early stage capital, which
is always good news to a prospective investor.

I mentioned the other programs to demonstrate that much less ambitious
projects have run into development difficulties, meaning...ought to
have been blatantly obvious...

Projects fail when you run out of money before you run out of
problems. Oftimes programs are underfunded and get an undeserved bad
reputation. That is what I find maddening about your responses. You
say X did thus and so, without any analysis or understanding. X may
very well done thus and so - but unless you know how X works and the
detailed history of X - you can't really conclude anything about it.

Projects succeed when you run out of problems before you run out of
money. Someone may say, Conestoga lost its shirt. Yet the Saturn
program in less time produced a rocket that sent men to the moon. Of
course Conestoga was limited by the capital a group of angel investors
could throw at it. Saturn spent $9 billion and in six years did
amazing things.

Financial genius is as important as technical genius in getting things
done here. Humanity has enough money. I even have the phone numbers
of all the people who have most of it. I now have a business model
that lets them risk a portion of it on new technologies.

that you program is likely to encounter
development difficulties scales large as well.

People are willing to take risks. The larger set of interconnecting
programs is broken down into a series of projects. Buying a basket of
project positions limits risk and guarantees a low level of return.

Think of an oil company. Oil companies routinely sell positions in a
wide range of projects in response to their exploration and discovery
operations. They have an over-riding vision of how they will
operate. The opportunities presented by their exploration and
discovery activity are organized and financed one at a time. So, you
don't buy BP - you buy BP Alaska pipeline company, or BP Shenzen
province company and so forth.

Same here.

There is an over-riding vision of developing off-world resources. I
have an R&D department, and an opportunity development department, and
we crank out projects that on balance make money. We then tap into
the 9.5 million SEC qualified people on the planet, and ask them for
up to $4 trillion in risk capital.

Maybe you can find trillions to spend when all of what you are
proposing is added together.

Well, there is an order of battle as they say.

Clearly, the mere development of that craft will take a while.

The heavy lift launcher, with its launch facility in New Mexico, will
take 4 years and cost $6 billion. This will build a fleet of 4 of the
largest launch vehicles, - built around 28 launch elements.

There will have to be experiments,

YEs. Stennis is available for static tests. Dryden and White Sands
are available for suborbital tests.

i.e. the aerospike engine is yet to
actually fly.

That is true, but the folks at P&W say that nozzles are not a
problem. They have worked with innovative nozzle designs and new
airframs (the DCX used a deeply throttable RL10 made specifically for
the program at very low cost) - so, this i smore than just hand-waving
sir. I have qualified vendors who have given me budgets time frames
and all the rest..

Now, you might pay for this if you would first use the
thing in a singular to launch satellites for some time, till the bugs
have been worked out.

The bugs as you call them will be worked out in numerical simulations
first, then in ground tests, then in suborbital flight tests.

the nice thing about a reusable vehicle, is you can build test
articles and shepherd them all the way through to production. You can
also build subscale test articles. Another reason I like P&W - they
have the RL10 - Reduce the 1,400 metric tons of thrust on each of
the boosters of the full scale launcher to a 45,000 pounds of thrust
on a subscale model - and you get a dandy little 7.8 metric ton
launcher as part of the deal. In the various configurations you can
do 2 ton 4 ton and 8 ton to LEO.

At current costs per kg - these will start earning their keep well
before the larger program is done.


Then the development curve could be something similar to what say
Kistler is trying to achieve,

Kistler doesn't have the right financial structure to raise the funds
needed on the scale needed.

first trying to establish a reusable
launch veicle and later they intend to expand on it.

This is a recipie for death - since any failure turns off the money
supply. It would be like an oil company leasing land and raising
money one exploration well at a time. No, failure on one well would
kill the program. You raise ALL the money you are likely to need to
achieve your longer range goal. It doesn't matter how much that is -
failure to achieve this first step - means the program is verylikely
to fail. Those who cannot see how to raise the billions needed -
virtually gurantee failure in this way, and make it more difficult for
those who come after.

Space X intents
the same.

They are letting their inability to raise the needed capital drive
their strategic growth. Can you imagine an oil company doing that?
They wouldn't last a quarter - they'd go belly up at the first hiccup
in production. Same here.

Now, that can lead to a family of launch veicles,

If EVERYTHING goes perfectly right - maybe. You are AND ing together
the pieces not OR ing togethr the pieces so you are guaranteeing
failure rather than success.

eventually the large
powerful veicle

Very unlikely very unlikely - unless you have all the money you need
and then some at the outset.

can be realized in managable steps.

Obviously you will not spend your money all at once. You are
confusing the finance piece with operations piece and putting a lot of
pressure on your engineers because your finance people don't know how
to raise all the money needed.

Then as you
suggest multibles of that can be used.

You will only attract qualified vendors who are working for your
program, not against it, if you have a purse that has ALL the money
for a program. It gives you very powerful control of your vendors to
do that.

Going hat in hand to vendors and employees gives control to them,
undermines the likelihood of success and virtually guarantees failure.

Absolutely,logistically operationally you SPEND money carefully
prudently step by step developing thing. Financially, you accumulate
a warchest BEFORE the first dollar is spent to carry you through the
war. See?

This is a development process of something on the order of 20 - 30
years for the veicle alone.

Michoud already exists. It already produces ETs. P&W already
exists. It already produces RS-68s. Dryden already exists. White
Sands already exists. Stennis already exists. If I have $9 billion
in escrow to develop a launcher capability - why the hell would it
take 30 years to build the vehicle I described using thesee assets?
It won't It will take 3 years and $6 billion

That fleet will then operate in conjunction with a number of disparate
programs that use the launcher fleet and keep it busy earning profits
for the finance company that organized the funding.

Those that invested in one project will likely invest in others -
spread their risk among many. 500 tons ot LEO means we can
contemplate a hotel on the moon, property development on Mars and the
moon along the lines of the property development companies that
developed the New World, a large heavy comsat constellation,, power
satellites, asteroidal survey and development...

Each will be a separate opportunity, and each will make use of the
capacity developed -after its developed- and each will be fully funded
at the outset without having to put its hand out again once financing
has been raised the first time.
.
Two of the eight projects I am sponsoring create $40 billion in value
for me. By risking a portion of that I gain sufficient credibility to
leverage what I invest to cover these programs.

Like I said, my game plan for terrestrial solar has its own array of
special projects going forward. So, space development is by no means
the central piece of what I'm doing.

Yet, $1 billion - invested into a finance company, to organize it to
develop off-world resources - is an unprecedented amount of money to
spend on such things privately. This company will do many things.
One will be to spin off projects for financing among the 9.5 million
millionaires in the world.

Reseearch Develolpment and Planning- thisis internally funded and
spins off specific plans for the rest.

Asset acquisition - buy undervalued aerospace assets and
reorganize them to efficiently support ongoing operations. - this is
internally funded and supplies talent for the projects. These guys
get the job done.

Strategic alliances - partner with those you cannot buy - this is
internally funded and supplies resources and talent for the projects.
These work as contractors for the guys just mentioned with an
opportunity to share in profits.

Launcher development - reusable heavy lift multi-stage launcher
project - $6 billion - 3 years - $600 million seed capital - $5.4
billion fund raise as work progresses.

Payload development - mass produce payloads for satellite
constellations project- $10 billion - 3 years $1 billion seed capital
- $9.billion fund raise - organizes parent assets to mass produce
large numbers of spacecraft at low cost per kg..

Satellite constellation - get aprovals and licenses for global
communications system - make use of assets when available. $200
million invested from parent - to attain need approvals in 3 years.
Once llicensing, auncher and payload programs are successful, a $40
billion fund raise is carried out with $4 billion coming from the
parent company. Constellation will be deployed in 2 years. Parent
has option to buy back positions within 2 years for $80 billion.

Communications marketing company - this project pre-purchases the
entire capacity of the satellite constellation (when available) and
accumulates media talent to market a wide range of services throughout
the world. - turn around once constellation is operational - 24
months. - that is 7 years from today. This is fully funded by the
parent company - no fund raise needed.

Power Satellite project - internally funded and wholy owned.-
transfer all IP from previous work, initial $50 billion internally
financed through borrowings against other assets owned by company -
exercises launch and payload and infrastructure assets over an 8 year
period to develop core technology for power satellites that make use
of owner's terrestrial solar installations as receiver sites.

Power Satellite Ground Station Financings - each power station on
Earth is financed as an oil field might bre financed, to raise between
$100 million and $10 billion - to develop reciever sites for the laser
energy beamed from space - through conventional project financing.
In the end, thousands of projects, totalling TRILLIONS of dollars will
capture the lion's share of the emerging global alternative energy
market. Every 20,000 MW of ground stations developed results in
another orbiting power sat purchase.

The nice thing about this, is that by creating an in-house success for
$50 billion - I can presell the output of all the ones I am contracted
to build - to pay for ALL the satellites I sell - even before I build
the first one.

Sort of how HenryFord got the money to buyout his investors. By
preselling cars he didn't have (except 1 he took on a road show) to
dealers that didn't exist (but planned to) - he collected deposits and
notes then deposited the deposits in a bank and convinced a bank to
honor the notes (and mortgaging his factory) from his dealer network.

Same here. - I build a few in-house projects around power satellites
and have one satellite orbiting. I have a history of success with the
launcher and the comsat - and the terrestrial stations.

I got back to the terrestrial stations and sell the EXCESS OUTPUT that
they will have when illuminated by laser energy - for a deposit and a
note. I have a whole team of sales folks. I take all the deposits
and all the notes back to an investment bank - and they organize a
consortium - and sell bonds to their high net work individuals. In
this way TRILLIONS of dollars may be organized in a relatively short
time.

I will have basically captured all the high risk capital out there on
planet Earth and have it available to build power satellites using all
the space launch capacity on planet Earth which I've already purchased
or partnered withl.

10% of this allows me to use the assets already described to explore
other opportunities.

The pay off comes when I build the 2,000 power satellites and deliver
the energy.promised - and the 9.5 million millionaires with $40
trillion turn into 30 milliion millionaires with $400 trillion -

I'm then ready to spin out the next range of projects - building on
the success of the earlier projects - and I maintain high standing
among the growing number of millionaires on planet Earth - as I
actualy deliver increasing amounts of information, energy and raw
materials to a growing world economy.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: We can meet all our needs through space development
    ... with each opportunity structured as a separate finance company ... looking for good returns on this money. ... The heavy lift launcher, with its launch facility in New Mexico, will ... satellites, asteroidal survey and development... ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: We can meet all our needs through space development
    ... with each opportunity structured as a separate finance company ... looking for good returns on this money. ... The heavy lift launcher, with its launch facility in New Mexico, will ... satellites, asteroidal survey and development... ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: We can meet all our needs through space development
    ... with each opportunity structured as a separate finance company ... looking for good returns on this money. ... The heavy lift launcher, with its launch facility in New Mexico, will ... satellites, asteroidal survey and development... ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: top ten reasons therell be faster progress
    ... and there isn't much money in that (in the short term ... weather satellites, mapping satellites, and on and on. ... launch costs were not significant ... Iridium might have been profitable if the costs of keeping the satellites ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Economic+Social Safety net ready: if chaos/panic comes, hop in.
    ... Pure Capitalism would mean people ... lend the money they have, and profit from its return plus usury. ... capital is roads, dams, electrical power grids, tractors, irrigation ... The finance sector transfers more and more into a financial ...
    (sci.econ)