The Non-Innovator's Dilemma

That's the title of my latest column at Tech Central Station, in which
I discuss why the economics of OSP make no sense.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/091903E.html

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
That's the title of my latest column at Tech Central Station, in which
I discuss why the economics of OSP make no sense.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/091903E.html


Let's be reasonable: there isn't any economic sense in human spaceflight, at
least not the way we are doing it now. Everyone knows that the OSP won't be
significantly cheaper (although it may be *more* expensive, as your article
points out) than the current Shuttle. The drive to replace the Shuttle is
largely based on subjective notions about safety and the misguided belief
that anything new must be better.

Basically, NASA does not want human spacelfight to become economically
viable since by doing this, it will have shot itself in the head. Therefore
I think that Congressional pressure is needed to change NASA's goal: to
develop technology to make access to space economically viable.

On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 17:42:14 CST, in a place far, far away, "Dr. O"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:


"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
.. .
That's the title of my latest column at Tech Central Station, in which
I discuss why the economics of OSP make no sense.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/091903E.html


Let's be reasonable: there isn't any economic sense in human spaceflight, at
least not the way we are doing it now. Everyone knows that the OSP won't be
significantly cheaper (although it may be *more* expensive, as your article
points out) than the current Shuttle. The drive to replace the Shuttle is
largely based on subjective notions about safety and the misguided belief
that anything new must be better.

Basically, NASA does not want human spacelfight to become economically
viable since by doing this, it will have shot itself in the head. Therefore
I think that Congressional pressure is needed to change NASA's goal: to
develop technology to make access to space economically viable.

Actually, it doesn't even need to do that, at least any more than it's
already doing. It just needs to be a good customer.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

Dr. O wrote:

Basically, NASA does not want human spacelfight to become economically
viable since by doing this, it will have shot itself in the head.


It is quite possible that people at NASA thinks that way. But human
space flight
becoming economically viable shouldn't kill NASA (specially in the
unlikely case
where it would of been NASA that would of made it become so). The first A in
NASA is still there and air flight has been economically viable for some
time.

Alain Fournier

"Dr. O" wrote in message ...
Let's be reasonable: there isn't any economic sense in human spaceflight, at
least not the way we are doing it now. Everyone knows that the OSP won't be
significantly cheaper (although it may be *more* expensive, as your article

OSP isn't about making it incredibly cheap for anyone else, it's about
making it "less" expensive for NASA and the US and (now) much safer
than the Shuttle.

points out) than the current Shuttle. The drive to replace the Shuttle is
largely based on subjective notions about safety and the misguided belief
that anything new must be better.

A shuttle concept is not necessarily bad, as Japan and the EU both
have *unmanned* shuttle concepts that look very good. The EU one looks
pretty slick with painted on TPS.

The shuttle has the problems of being the *first* shuttle.

Look at how crappy the very first cars were. It was very common to get
flat tires fixed every thirty miles and other breakdowns.

Basically, NASA does not want human spacelfight to become economically
viable since by doing this, it will have shot itself in the head. Therefore
I think that Congressional pressure is needed to change NASA's goal: to
develop technology to make access to space economically viable.

NASA would love to both save money on human space-flight *and* keep
their budget. They'd love to switch that to other projects (like Mars
of NEO's asteroids).

But we have to get beyond 1.0 of the shuttle.

Arthur Hansen

On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 12:49:26 CST, in a place far, far away,
(Arthur Hansen) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

"Dr. O" wrote in message ...
Let's be reasonable: there isn't any economic sense in human spaceflight, at
least not the way we are doing it now. Everyone knows that the OSP won't be
significantly cheaper (although it may be *more* expensive, as your article

OSP isn't about making it incredibly cheap for anyone else, it's about
making it "less" expensive for NASA and the US and (now) much safer
than the Shuttle.

The problem is, as my column points out, it won't. At least not the
less expensive part. Whether it will be safer remains to be seen. I
have my doubts, but I also think that safety shouldn't trump
everything else, so that's another dumb reason to do OSP.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

h (Rand Simberg) wrote in message . ..
http://www.techcentralstation.com/091903E.html
cheaper (although it may be *more* expensive, as your article

OSP isn't about making it incredibly cheap for anyone else, it's about
making it "less" expensive for NASA and the US and (now) much safer
than the Shuttle.

The problem is, as my column points out, it won't. At least not the
less expensive part. Whether it will be safer remains to be seen. I
have my doubts, but I also think that safety shouldn't trump
everything else, so that's another dumb reason to do OSP.

The problem with this column is that it rests on so many false
assumptions and strawmen that it makes GuthVenus look rational. Let's
start with your main point in the article:

"On the other hand, if the agency continues to ignore the pent-up demand for
public space travel, it risks irrelevancy, and having its high-cost myths
exposed as private entities start to show the way to affordable and safe
human spaceflight."

Rand, what planet are you from? What is the agency doing that
frustrates the "pent-up demand for public space travel?" (Cue dodging
that direct question with a vague response that inverts the issue, to
something along the lines of 'not encouraging the private sector...
enough...')Let me preemptively ask you a follow-up: WHAT COULD NASA
ACTUALLY DO BETTER OR DIFFERENT THAT WOULD HELP PUBLIC SPACE TRAVEL?

I can only assume from your article that you would like the agency to
start by discontinuing OSP and performing any remaining government
human role in space with a shuttle that returns to flight. Your own
justification for this scheme, however, is contradictory even within
the article itself. In one paragraph your explanation of why OSP is a
bad idea says that it will require two, maybe three times as many
launches to accomplish the same amount in space--and yet two
paragraphs later your 'generous' economic analysis RESTS on the
assumption that OSP flight rates will be the same as pre-Columbia
shuttle flight rates. Consistency, please! Not to mention the
drastically reduced flight opportunities for shuttle due to new
daytime photo requirements--all the sudden that shuttle flight rate
looks much lower and the OSP flight rate looks a lot higher.

It would take too long to go into detail about how shaky the rest of
your 'generous' economic analysis of shuttle vs. OSP is, but
regardless of the exact numbers, it's based on two ENTIRELY false
assumptions--
1) that shuttle costs are fixed--obviously way wrong. Shuttle
operating costs have already been projected to rise drastically in the
coming years due to Post-Columbia changes and orbiter airframe aging.
2) that shuttle represents "sunk costs" that are essentially free,
while OSP will be starting from scratch. BS! NASA knows this isn't
true, based on the billions it spends on overhauling and maintaining
the orbiters--that's right, all those people are paid for actually
doing something! Development costs for the shuttle cannot be
considered to be 'sunk,' since we have spent more than their
development cost maintaining them since their construction.
Development costs are sunk, but still sinking further, if you want to
look at it that way.

OSP is not starting from scratch, either. The main booster work has
already been done and is waiting on man-rating. And if a capsule
design is actually chosen (as growing rumors seem to indicate),
development will draw extensively on the mountain of data from Gemini
and Apollo capsules. This is not new technology. We know exactly what
it takes to build.

In fact, the whole idea of using commercial production model economics
on what is still an experimental government platform is pretty silly,
as is the notion of waiting for the eventual successor to X-prize
contestants to return man to orbital space. (Actually, that's not
silly, it's sad. That's burning your 1480 Portugese caravel while you
wait for the commercial development of an 1860 Yankee Clipper. It
might happen eventually--but you'll miss out on 400 years of
exploration in the meantime.)

Is thinking that everyone else is wrong a sign of schizophrenia--or
merely arrogance?
I quote:

"Much of NASA's "culture" problem is in fact a symptom rather than a cause --
a symptom of too many years of believing that all wisdom about things space
resides at the agency, a belief nurtured by an often fawning and ignorant
press and a political establishment that values pork over progress."

In this view, everyone else is stupid--NASA, a 'fawning and ignorant
press,' the political establishment. It's fun to complain, and cheap
too. But the real innovator's dilemma is that technical innovation,
and exploration, are both hard--talk, on the other hand is cheap.
Which is why the only actual concrete solution this article offers is
more talk. Perhaps you're unwilling to admit that complaining is a lot
less risky than coming up with solutions:

"It will require a much broader discussion of national space policy, far
beyond NASA's role.

Ultimately, only by addressing the true issues that hold us back in space,
and expanding and encouraging the role of the private sector to pursue the
dreams of individuals, rather than those of a monolithic space bureaucracy"

So it's NASA's job to encourage the private sector to pursue the
dreams of private individuals? Isn't that a little selfish? That's
using public funds to accomplish private ends. Shouldn't our
'monolithic' public agencies accomplish public ends, for the public
good? In a free society, we generally leave the "dreams of
individuals" up to individuals in the private sector. Why do anything
different with regards to space?

Tom Merkle

"Tom Merkle" wrote in message

The problem with this column is that it rests on so many false
assumptions and strawmen that it makes GuthVenus look rational. Let's
start with your main point in the article:

There's another anti-OSP column this morning:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=870

There are as many views on this matter as there are people. Unfortunately,
there is one point that sticks out to me as being wrong in the above
mentioned column. That is, Don Peterson is against OSP because (among other
reasons) there is no new technology in it. I think that reason is one aspect
of why other projects have either failed to be completed or didn't end up
working as advertised. It would be an appropriate goal for an
experimental/research vehicle, but for a vehicle that is meant to become
pseudo-operational? I don't think so. Why develop something new and exotic
when there are already systems in place that would fulfill the requirements?
It would simply inflate costs.

Jon

(Tom Merkle) wrote in message om...
h (Rand Simberg) wrote in message . ..
http://www.techcentralstation.com/091903E.html
cheaper (although it may be *more* expensive, as your article

....snip...

Rand, what planet are you from? What is the agency doing that
frustrates the "pent-up demand for public space travel?" (Cue dodging
that direct question with a vague response that inverts the issue, to
something along the lines of 'not encouraging the private sector...
enough...')Let me preemptively ask you a follow-up: WHAT COULD NASA
ACTUALLY DO BETTER OR DIFFERENT THAT WOULD HELP PUBLIC SPACE TRAVEL?

Easy, get out of the space transportation business
that NACA would never have gotten into.

Best regards,
Len (Cormier)
PanAero, Inc. and Third Millennium Aerospace, Inc.
( http://www.tour2space.com )

....snip,,,

Tom Merkle

On 24 Sep 2003 08:15:01 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Tom Merkle) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

WHAT COULD NASA
ACTUALLY DO BETTER OR DIFFERENT THAT WOULD HELP PUBLIC SPACE TRAVEL?

It could be a better customer, with more ambition for manned
spaceflight than sending a few government employees a year. It could
stop wasting billions on dead-end projects.

It would take too long to go into detail about how shaky the rest of
your 'generous' economic analysis of shuttle vs. OSP is, but
regardless of the exact numbers, it's based on two ENTIRELY false
assumptions--
1) that shuttle costs are fixed--obviously way wrong. Shuttle
operating costs have already been projected to rise drastically in the
coming years due to Post-Columbia changes and orbiter airframe aging.

Numbers?

2) that shuttle represents "sunk costs" that are essentially free,
while OSP will be starting from scratch. BS!

Of course not, and I didn't write that.

NASA knows this isn't
true, based on the billions it spends on overhauling and maintaining
the orbiters--that's right, all those people are paid for actually
doing something!

Who said they weren't?

Those Development costs for the shuttle cannot be
considered to be 'sunk,' since we have spent more than their
development cost maintaining them since their construction.

Those aren't development costs.

OSP is not starting from scratch, either.

Then that makes the projected development costs even more outrageous.

In fact, the whole idea of using commercial production model economics
on what is still an experimental government platform is pretty silly,
as is the notion of waiting for the eventual successor to X-prize
contestants to return man to orbital space. (Actually, that's not
silly, it's sad. That's burning your 1480 Portugese caravel while you
wait for the commercial development of an 1860 Yankee Clipper. It
might happen eventually--but you'll miss out on 400 years of
exploration in the meantime.)

An interesting analogy, but it's not at all clear that it's a useful
or appropriate one.

Is thinking that everyone else is wrong a sign of schizophrenia--or
merely arrogance?

"Everyone else"? I don't think that my opinion is unique. I don't
see any unanimity of support for OSP anywhere--in Congress, among the
public, even at NASA itself. That statement is exactly the kind of
arrogance to which I'm referring.

I quote:

"Much of NASA's "culture" problem is in fact a symptom rather than a cause --
a symptom of too many years of believing that all wisdom about things space
resides at the agency, a belief nurtured by an often fawning and ignorant
press and a political establishment that values pork over progress."

In this view, everyone else is stupid--NASA, a 'fawning and ignorant
press,' the political establishment.

I didn't say they were stupid. Another interesting strawman.

"It will require a much broader discussion of national space policy, far
beyond NASA's role.

Ultimately, only by addressing the true issues that hold us back in space,
and expanding and encouraging the role of the private sector to pursue the
dreams of individuals, rather than those of a monolithic space bureaucracy"

So it's NASA's job to encourage the private sector to pursue the
dreams of private individuals? Isn't that a little selfish? That's
using public funds to accomplish private ends.

It happens all the time.

Shouldn't our
'monolithic' public agencies accomplish public ends, for the public
good?

Creating a new space industry that allows affordable access to orbit
is a public good. NASA needs it, the DoD needs it, and it would
create vast new wealth.

In a free society, we generally leave the "dreams of
individuals" up to individuals in the private sector. Why do anything
different with regards to space?

You must be living in some other "free society" than I do. When I'm
no longer having to give up half of my income to support a welfare
state, I'll be happy to end NASA funding as well. In fact, I'd be
happy to end NASA funding for manned spaceflight right now, because
it's providing poor value for the money. But if we're going to be
spending billions of taxpayer dollars per year on manned spaceflight,
I'd like to see it actually make some serious progress. OSP doesn't
do that.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers: