High Launch Costs - Result of Physics?

JRS: In article , seen in
news:sci.space.policy, Christopher M. Jones
posted at Mon, 30 Jun 2003 19:47:02 :-

Something could have been built in Europe, and possibly used as a way of
getting to India or China, though not of getting back. But it would
have been a fair-sized project, and there was not the "social
technology" to expend such effort on complete innovations.

In case you hadn't noticed, we're fantasizing here about
what was conceivably possible in 1500, not about whether
it would actually *be* possible for such a project to
have been carried out.


The U.S. space programme, 1953-2003, has amply demonstrated that the
second is of no less importance than the first.

If a prosperous King of the 15th century had wanted to build a modest
Montgolfiere, on the scale of 1783, he could no doubt have done so. But
the project management for research, design and construction of a
transatlantic balloon would have been out of reach.

Just because *someone* had understood, and published, an aspect of
science or technology did not mean that society as a whole had that
understanding to a degree giving the capability of using it. The
Copernican system was published in 1543 (and was publishable 25 years
earlier); but it was not allowed to be believed, by those with authority
and power, in Galileo's time.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links;
some Astro stuff via astro.htm, gravity0.htm; quotes.htm; pascal.htm; &c, &c.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.

"John Ordover" wrote:
"Christopher M. Jones" wrote in message
...
Interestingly, microprocessors now would be much more
expensive than most computers were in the 50s and 60s
if each fabrication plant only produced one cpu.
Those plants cost billions of dollars for state of the
art chips, but they produce so many that the cost is
amortized down to a pittance per chip.

That's because there is a huge volume of customers, so they can sell a
heck of a lot of chips.

Here's a big clue for you John, the market and the production
capacity developed side by side. As microprocessors became
more popular the fixed production costs got amortized over
larger numbers of parts, lowering the per part cost. If it
is possible (and it seems to be) to make decently reliable
RLVs, and if a market *could* exist for ticket prices at the
cost where the RLV was operating near the limit of its
ability to amortize the per-ticket production costs, then
it would only be a matter of time before that became a
reality (provided it didn't require, say, trillions of
dollars of investment or some such). Even if it would
require operating at a loss for years or perhaps a few
decades it would be very likely to come to pass, because
there are plenty of business people who know how to build up
things like that.


Similarly, if the cost of a launch vehicle were even many
billions of dollars to build but was highly reusible with
very low incremental costs (i.e. fuel and minimal labor)
the per flight cost would be rediculously cheap as well.


Only if there were as many customers for launches as for chips. But
there aren't, and won't be, because there's nothing valuable in space
go to and bring back...

Yes, and why would anyone ever want to have their own
personal computer? Do you really want to be "that guy"
who's proclamations are remembered and laughed at in
the future because of their obvious idiocy in the face
of the reality of the day?


Jumbo jets cost tens and hundreds of millions of dollars,
but fly so often that the ticket price is mostly due to
fuel and labor costs.


....and no one to visit or do business with.

By the logic of that statement all of humanity still
lives in a small spot of land in Africa. Think about it
John.


As I've pointed out more than once
on these newsgroups, the technological capability to do
RLV SSTO launch vehicles using LOX/Kerosene (a propellant
mixture that the current generation of aerospace blue-
noses don't much care for, despite its obvious advantages)
is very nearly on the shelf. Existing and historical
rocket stages should be capable of SSTO operation with
only minor upgrades. With only *slightly* improved
engine, design, construction, and materials it should be
abundantly possible to build an RLV SSTO capable of
routine operations with low incremental cost (e.g. using
composite structures, slightly upgraded engines, advanced
alloys, and low-maintenance thermal protection systems).

To sell rides to whom? To do what?

Tourists, colonists, scientists, explorers. And that's
just the first generation. Once parts of space are even
slightly populated you will need all those fabulous
secondary services. Someone's gotta pick up the garbage
and stock the stores on Mars. Once it starts it just
snowballs. History has shown that is the case time and
time again.

And yet again, there are already people *right now* who
have bought rides into space. And there are already people
*right now* who have made quite firm commitments to buy
rides into space. Reality is smacking you in the face John
and you're just too bone headed to notice it.

"Christopher M. Jones" wrote in message ...

That's just plain idiotic. There are cars from 2003 which can
out-perform the average car today. Sheesh. Get a dictionary,
look up the word "tautology". Or do you want to compare Thrust
SST to one of those cars from 1969? Looking to the thread topic,
I see the subject is *cost*, not speed. Shouldn't you be
comparing the "amount of car" you get for a dollar (inflation
adjusted, of course) now vs. in the 1800s? I would bet that
it's quite a bit more now than then.

Oh, and I suppose they had gas-electric hybrids for sale in
1899 right? With airbags. And air conditioning. And power
steering. And anti-lock brakes. And 50 mpg gas mileage.

I've seen some of the NCAP crash tests. Two years ago the Citroen C5
was the first car to get 5 stars. Now a dozen cars have five stars,
and if your car is over 5 years old, it's probably a deathtrap
compared to today's cars. The improvement, as you point out, is
amazing.

"Alex Terrell" wrote:
I've seen some of the NCAP crash tests. Two years ago the Citroen C5
was the first car to get 5 stars. Now a dozen cars have five stars,
and if your car is over 5 years old, it's probably a deathtrap
compared to today's cars. The improvement, as you point out, is
amazing.

Another interesting data point is that despite the raising
of the 55mph national highway speed limit in the US the
injury rate on highways in America has actually fallen to
a record low level. One of the better candidates for the
primary reason for such low injury rates is improvements
in car safety.

Here's a big clue for you John, the market and the production
capacity developed side by side. As microprocessors became
more popular the fixed production costs got amortized over
larger numbers of parts, lowering the per part cost.

Of course. But nothing in space is becoming more popular - in fact,
comsats are -less- popular than they were.



If it
is possible (and it seems to be) to make decently reliable
RLVs, and if a market *could* exist for ticket prices at the
cost where the RLV was operating near the limit of its
ability to amortize the per-ticket production costs, then
it would only be a matter of time before that became a
reality (provided it didn't require, say, trillions of
dollars of investment or some such). Even if it would
require operating at a loss for years or perhaps a few
decades it would be very likely to come to pass, because
there are plenty of business people who know how to build up
things like that.

But there is no product to sell. No private industry operates at a
loss for decades before turning a profit. See any of those
unprofitable dot.coms around?



Similarly, if the cost of a launch vehicle were even many
billions of dollars to build but was highly reusible with
very low incremental costs (i.e. fuel and minimal labor)
the per flight cost would be rediculously cheap as well.

Again, to launch to where, to do what that makes money?




Only if there were as many customers for launches as for chips. But
there aren't, and won't be, because there's nothing valuable in space
go to and bring back...

Yes, and why would anyone ever want to have their own
personal computer? Do you really want to be "that guy"
who's proclamations are remembered and laughed at in
the future because of their obvious idiocy in the face
of the reality of the day?


Not the same thing. We had the capacity to move into space in a big
way since 1969. That we haven't done it is because no one has thought
of a product to sell. There are far more failures we've never heard
of than success stories.


Jumbo jets cost tens and hundreds of millions of dollars,
but fly so often that the ticket price is mostly due to
fuel and labor costs.


....and no one to visit or do business with.

By the logic of that statement all of humanity still
lives in a small spot of land in Africa. Think about it
John.

Not at all. Humanity for the most part settled the planet by walking
from one place where food, water, and air was available to another
place where food, water, and air was availible. Walking is cheap and
free. So was air and water, and food, while it took some effort to
obtain, was plentiful. Later on, there were products to ship home for
good money. Good luck walking to the Moon.



To sell rides to whom? To do what?

Tourists, colonists, scientists, explorers.

Tourists can't afford it, we can't afford to build the colonies, we
will support some minor science maybe, and the explorers can't afford
it either.




And that's
just the first generation. Once parts of space are even
slightly populated you will need all those fabulous
secondary services. Someone's gotta pick up the garbage
and stock the stores on Mars. Once it starts it just
snowballs. History has shown that is the case time and
time again.

You're ham-and-egging again. Once space is populated it will be
profitable and that's because it is profitable to populate it. Round
and round...



And yet again, there are already people *right now* who
have bought rides into space. And there are already people
*right now* who have made quite firm commitments to buy
rides into space. Reality is smacking you in the face John
and you're just too bone headed to notice it.

But that doesn't mean the price is going down, nor that the people who
bought rides weren't throwing their money away.

(Alex Terrell) wrote in message . com...
"Christopher M. Jones" wrote in message ...

That's just plain idiotic. There are cars from 2003 which can
out-perform the average car today. Sheesh. Get a dictionary,
look up the word "tautology". Or do you want to compare Thrust
SST to one of those cars from 1969? Looking to the thread topic,
I see the subject is *cost*, not speed. Shouldn't you be
comparing the "amount of car" you get for a dollar (inflation
adjusted, of course) now vs. in the 1800s? I would bet that
it's quite a bit more now than then.

Oh, and I suppose they had gas-electric hybrids for sale in
1899 right? With airbags. And air conditioning. And power
steering. And anti-lock brakes. And 50 mpg gas mileage.

I've seen some of the NCAP crash tests. Two years ago the Citroen C5
was the first car to get 5 stars. Now a dozen cars have five stars,
and if your car is over 5 years old, it's probably a deathtrap
compared to today's cars. The improvement, as you point out, is
amazing.

Does it run by something other than an Internal combustion engine?

If a prosperous King of the 15th century had wanted to build a modest
Montgolfiere, on the scale of 1783, he could no doubt have done so.

That's like saying "If a President of the then-United States in the early 21st
Century had wanted to build a modest starship, on the scale of AD 2190, he
could no doubt have had it done."

To speak of people being able to build a device centuries before its invention
is silly. If the knowledge for ballooning had existed in 1500, someone would
have done it then.

Walking is cheap and
free. So was air and water, and food, while it took some effort to
obtain, was plentiful. Later on, there were products to ship home for
good money. Good luck walking to the Moon.

You can't walk to Massachusetts from England either (unless you are a crab), or
to Texas from Spain, and many decades passed before these new countries had any
wealth to return to the motherlands. That didn't prevent their colonization.

"John Ordover" wrote:
Here's a big clue for you John, the market and the production
capacity developed side by side. As microprocessors became
more popular the fixed production costs got amortized over
larger numbers of parts, lowering the per part cost.

Of course. But nothing in space is becoming more popular - in fact,
comsats are -less- popular than they were.

Because the expansion of services is diminishing? Yes, I
see how that makes sense....

Specifically, it doesn't.


If it
is possible (and it seems to be) to make decently reliable
RLVs, and if a market *could* exist for ticket prices at the
cost where the RLV was operating near the limit of its
ability to amortize the per-ticket production costs, then
it would only be a matter of time before that became a
reality (provided it didn't require, say, trillions of
dollars of investment or some such). Even if it would
require operating at a loss for years or perhaps a few
decades it would be very likely to come to pass, because
there are plenty of business people who know how to build up
things like that.

But there is no product to sell. No private industry operates at a
loss for decades before turning a profit.

You really ought to take those reading comprehension courses
at the learning annex, they will aid you so much. As I
have said repeatedly, tourism, tourism, tourism, tourism.
Tourism. It is a product. Which product? Tourism. Wait,
I'm a little confused, what are you selling? Space tourism.
Hmmm? Tourism. Come again? I believe it's still tourism.
Tour-what? Tourism! Tee! Oh! You! (pause) Are! Eye! Ess!
Emm!

Many businesses operate at a loss for a considerable amount
of time before turning a profit. Eurotunnel spent billions
digging the Channel Tunnel, operated in deficit for over a
decade, and will remain in debt for a considerable time
longer.


See any of those unprofitable dot.coms around?

In fact, yes.


Again, to launch to where, to do what that makes money?

Gee, I have no clue.... To sell tools? To make prisms?
Or some sort of combo tool-prism I think, maybe. Or maybe
it was dual-prisons or something else...


Yes, and why would anyone ever want to have their own
personal computer? Do you really want to be "that guy"
who's proclamations are remembered and laughed at in
the future because of their obvious idiocy in the face
of the reality of the day?

Not the same thing. We had the capacity to move into space in a big
way since 1969. That we haven't done it is because no one has thought
of a product to sell. There are far more failures we've never heard
of than success stories.

No we have not had that capability. We have had the
capability to poke into space in a halting, cost
prohibitive fashion. Later we acquired the ability
to do so more often but at the same cost.

And yet again, the commercial space industry is alive
and thriving.


....and no one to visit or do business with.

By the logic of that statement all of humanity still
lives in a small spot of land in Africa. Think about it
John.

Not at all. Humanity for the most part settled the planet by walking
from one place where food, water, and air was available to another
place where food, water, and air was availible. Walking is cheap and
free. So was air and water, and food, while it took some effort to
obtain, was plentiful. Later on, there were products to ship home for
good money. Good luck walking to the Moon.

Firstly, immigration was almost *never* prompted by
the ability to setup trade from the new location.
More often than not it just simply happened, people
had the ability to move so they moved. They needed
no larger economic raison-d'etre beyond the self-
sufficiency of the local economy of the colony.

And colonization on Earth has proceeded using quite
sophisticated technologies at times, and was certainly
not limited to mere walking. Boats have long been a
big part of immigration on Earth (for thousands of
years at least), unless you'll have me believe the
polynesians walked across the Pacific Ocean.

Again, your statement implied that people would not
travel to locations where there weren't already
people. This is blatantly false. Will you retract
that statement?


Tourists, colonists, scientists, explorers.

Tourists can't afford it, we can't afford to build the colonies, we
will support some minor science maybe, and the explorers can't afford
it either.

They can afford it now! Your argument has all the strength
of a rope made of sand.


And that's
just the first generation. Once parts of space are even
slightly populated you will need all those fabulous
secondary services. Someone's gotta pick up the garbage
and stock the stores on Mars. Once it starts it just
snowballs. History has shown that is the case time and
time again.

You're ham-and-egging again. Once space is populated it will be
profitable and that's because it is profitable to populate it. Round
and round...

Not at all. I already described the first generation.


And yet again, there are already people *right now* who
have bought rides into space. And there are already people
*right now* who have made quite firm commitments to buy
rides into space. Reality is smacking you in the face John
and you're just too bone headed to notice it.

But that doesn't mean the price is going down, nor that the people who
bought rides weren't throwing their money away.

It means that the companies providing such services can
make a profit. If they make a profit they can spend their
profits on ways to make bigger profits, especially ways
which involve lowering ticket prices. Lather, rinse,
repeat. This is economics 095 John, do try to keep up.


Oh, and where's your counter-argument about vomit comet
rides John? You mentioned the subject twice quite
forcefully, what do you have to say now that you have been
proven so abundantly wrong on the topic? Will you retract
your point? Will you acknowledge that the existence of
a market for $5,000 rides with only a few moments of
zero-g, and an utterly boring view in comparison to the
Earth from space, implies that people might be willing to
spend at least as much on sub-orbital tourist flights?

On Tue, 01 Jul 2003 19:11:39 -0500, (Alan
Anderson) wrote:

A microwave oven can cook food without using flame or producing smoke or
carbon monoxide. You can't heat something like green beans on a stove
without using extra water.

You're kidding, aren't you? I can heat sauteed green beans in a
skillet with no added water. Ditto stir-frying.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

"Turn to kill, not to engage." LCDR Willie Driscoll, USN