Re: We can meet all our needs through space development

The laws of physics are the same, and for the most part the best
available science hasn't changed all that much over the past decade,
and yet there's still no Mook H2 as green hydrogen flowing anywhere in
sight. What gives?

There's no question that humanity is quickly outgrowing the limited
resources of this badly pillaged, raped and polluted planet, although
going off-world has loads of spendy and energy consuming problems that
have not been resolved, especially on behalf of accommodating our
extremely frail DNA that's not exactly gamma and X-ray proof.

Without an affordable and technically doable surplus of Willie PV
energy, along with a healthy cache of all that green and relatively
cheap H2 gas that'll yield those $8/barrel of synfuel from coal, we're
screwed unless we go all out nuclear and having to continually prepare
for surviving WWIII.
. - Brad Guth



On Jan 31, 9:11 am, Willie.Moo...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
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 ...

read more »

.

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)
  • Boeing
    ... Boeing for $1 billion - and arrange a leveraged buyout for 47.1% of ... launch center. ... The 500 ton payload is housed in a stretched section between the ... Twenty-four satellites each massing 20 tons are launched by this ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: I think hes just being real generous.
    ... Ill even use the export banks money just to prove you can use the export ... My philipean home cost 1.8 mil for 800 acre island. ... Ill profit 100 bucks a ton after it pays for the ship and the land. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Returned 360s
    ... I'm not calling people who buy early 'idiots', if you have the money, ... There is no risk, simply because if a product is not fit for purpose, it ... PSP too, as whenever there is demand, the guy sat on the end of the ... I wager if it was now during the PSP launch still, ...
    (uk.games.video.xbox)
  • 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)