Armstrong lauds another spaceman

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote:

Derek Lyons wrote:

It's highly unlikely it would have come down much even with one of the
original designs - which would have shared many of the same
maintenance and operating costs, and would have been even more more
expensive to research, develop, and build.

What's more, if the development cost had been much higher, NASA could
not have maintained even the pretense that the shuttle would have
had a positive return on investment, even if it *had* reduced
launch costs. The required flight rate to 'earn back' the development
cost would have been too obviously beyond what future congresses
would have funded.

And that's the key problem with both a notional alternative STS and
the alt.space movement - future launch rates are speculative as hell.
You need to fly a lot of payloads (regardless of whether your launcher
is expendable or reuseable) before your investment is paid back. Then
you need to *keep* flying payloads at a high rate in order to remain
profitable. (Or 'profitable' in the case of a government system.)

If you can't fly enough annually, you end up in a 'coffin corner' -
stuck between the unpleasant choice between raising your rates or
going out of business. (It's hard to cut expenses significantly
unless you've been less than bright in how you organized your
business, the least likely people to 'get smart' and fix the
problems.)

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

On Wed, 08 Sep 2004 13:35:00 -0500, (Gene DiGennaro)
wrote:

Georgiana Gates wrote in message news:413b8af9$0$444

I'm embarrassed to say that the title of the thread made me think of
*Lance* Armstrong, the bicyclist. It's really a shame how the early
astronauts have disappeared from the scene.



I agree but lately Neil seems to be more in the public eye. He's
finally agreed to a book and there will be a movie about him. It seems
like he's been more available lately. If only the general public
better understood Apollo's accomplishments...

Moon Walker Neil Armstrong Opens Up In New Book

LAST UPDATE: 11/19/2005 8:24:45 PM


CINCINNATI (AP) - Neil Armstrong was 38 when he uttered the words that have been
a blessing and a curse to him.

After his return from walking on the moon in 1969, Armstrong took a 45-day tour
as a NASA ambassador.

Since then, he's been quiet.

Author James Hansen is opening the door to Armstrong's life a little wider with
"First Man: The Life of Neil A- Armstrong."

Hansen logged more than 50 hours of interviews with Armstrong and talked with
about 125 friends, family members and associates.

Seventy-five-year-old Armstrong has rejected many biography requests. He
accepted the proposal from Hansen -- a former NASA historian.

Hansen says his plan for the book and his credentials helped him earn
Armstrong's trust.

http://www.wkrc.com/news/local/story...2-8894CABBD1CC
..

I have a copy here that I plan on reading over the holiday.

===[George R. Kasica]=== +1 262 677 0766
President +1 206 374 6482 FAX
Netwrx Consulting Inc. Jackson, WI USA
http://www.netwrx1.com

ICQ #12862186

On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 16:54:08 -0600, in a place far, far away, "Fred J.
McCall" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

: Which essentially says that it will never happen, Henry, since you
: have to start going there before there is an incentive to lower the
: cost of going there.
:
:Nonsense. Many many things have become affordable because
f advances not specifically directed at those things.

If you think it's nonsense, please tell us just what technologies you
think are sufficiently 'dual use' to Mars flights and something else
(and what that something else is) so as to drive down the costs of
Mars flights.

Any technologies that drive down the cost of access to LEO.

On Tue, 18 Jan 2005 06:47:43 -0600, in a place far, far away, "Fred J.
McCall" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
: :I repeat: your position would require that the technologies for
: :Mars vehicles be completely disjoint from those used in the rest
: f the technosphere.
:
: You can repeat it all you like, but you haven't shown it to be true.
: That takes real data and real examples.
:
:And the evidence that you have presented for your original
osition is...?

Price trends over the past 30+ years. Look at NASA's estimated price
for duplicating what we did in the 1960's.

That's because NASA foolishly proposes to do it the same way they did
it then.

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 09:57:12 -0600, in a place far, far away, "Fred J.
McCall" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

Bottom line is that these costs (getting to the Moon, putting a pound
in LEO) have not dropped appreciably in decades. Claims that such a
price drop will magically happen seem to simply fly in the face of
reality.

No one claims that it will happen through magic.

On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 04:38:43 -0600, in a place far, far away, "Fred J.
McCall" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

(Henry Spencer) wrote:

:In article ,
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
::Turning the general populace into space enthusiasts *will not happen*, and
:lans which assume that it will are pointless fantasies. The only way to
::get to (say) Mars is to lower the cost to the point that overwhelming
:ublic enthusiasm is not required.
:
:Which essentially says that it will never happen, Henry, since you
:have to start going there before there is an incentive to lower the
:cost of going there.
:
:Not at all. The single technical change that would contribute most to
:lowering the cost of a Mars expedition -- much cheaper launch to LEO -- is
:desirable for a number of more immediate reasons.

And yet that doesn't seem to be progressing with great rapidity,
either. It seems that EVERY new launch system I can remember promised
to reduce cost of getting a pound to LEO to the $100 range.

You must be living in some alternate reality. Most new launch systems
(at least the ones that get formally proposed to the government) only
propose to reduce the costs by an order of magnitude or so, if that.

In fact, the actual cost of getting a pound to LEO doesn't seem to
have moved even a single order of magnitude over the entire history of
real space launchers, much less the two orders of magnitude necessary
to make 'swamping the problems with mass' really feasible.

Only because there's little demand for it from the traditional
providers of launch system development funds.

h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

:On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 04:38:43 -0600, in a place far, far away, "Fred J.
:McCall" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
:in such a way as to indicate that:
:
(Henry Spencer) wrote:
:
::In article ,
::Fred J. McCall wrote:
:::Turning the general populace into space enthusiasts *will not happen*, and
::lans which assume that it will are pointless fantasies. The only way to
:::get to (say) Mars is to lower the cost to the point that overwhelming
::ublic enthusiasm is not required.
::
::Which essentially says that it will never happen, Henry, since you
::have to start going there before there is an incentive to lower the
::cost of going there.
::
::Not at all. The single technical change that would contribute most to
::lowering the cost of a Mars expedition -- much cheaper launch to LEO -- is
::desirable for a number of more immediate reasons.
:
:And yet that doesn't seem to be progressing with great rapidity,
:either. It seems that EVERY new launch system I can remember promised
:to reduce cost of getting a pound to LEO to the $100 range.
:
:You must be living in some alternate reality.

Yes. I live in the one the actual world occurs in. Not sure about
your current residence.

:Most new launch systems
at least the ones that get formally proposed to the government) only
ropose to reduce the costs by an order of magnitude or so, if that.

That's what generally happens after downselect. The original number
proposed for the Shuttle, for example, was on the order of $150-$300
per pound with 100% reusability (and a much smaller payload and much
less crossrange capability). This relied on selling a *lot* of them
(something like 5 for NASA plus commercial sales after that).

This number rather rapidly devolved to the range you're discussing
(around $1500 per pound) as payload and crossrange requirements grew.
It still relied on 100% reusability and an unrealistic number of
Shuttles being constructed.

Now go look at the real number.

:In fact, the actual cost of getting a pound to LEO doesn't seem to
:have moved even a single order of magnitude over the entire history of
:real space launchers, much less the two orders of magnitude necessary
:to make 'swamping the problems with mass' really feasible.
:
:Only because there's little demand for it from the traditional
roviders of launch system development funds.

Largely because they don't believe it can be done and don't want to
fund yet more development of another system that doesn't hit the
target (again).

Do you truly believe that a system that cut price to LEO to the $1500
range wouldn't rapidly become the launch system of choice (assuming
payload capability similar to what is currently extant)?

Why would commercial users (in particular) stick with a higher-cost
system, all other things being equal?

--
"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

On Wed, 08 Feb 2006 05:05:57 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Fred J.
McCall" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:


:Most new launch systems
at least the ones that get formally proposed to the government) only
ropose to reduce the costs by an order of magnitude or so, if that.

That's what generally happens after downselect.

And generally before.

:In fact, the actual cost of getting a pound to LEO doesn't seem to
:have moved even a single order of magnitude over the entire history of
:real space launchers, much less the two orders of magnitude necessary
:to make 'swamping the problems with mass' really feasible.
:
:Only because there's little demand for it from the traditional
roviders of launch system development funds.

Largely because they don't believe it can be done and don't want to
fund yet more development of another system that doesn't hit the
target (again).

Do you truly believe that a system that cut price to LEO to the $1500
range wouldn't rapidly become the launch system of choice (assuming
payload capability similar to what is currently extant)?

Of course not. Do you truly believe that I wrote such a thing?

Why would commercial users (in particular) stick with a higher-cost
system, all other things being equal?

They wouldn't. Nice straw man, though. Chock full.

What I said was that there was no demand for it, or at least not
enough to justify the investment. I didn't say that they wouldn't
prefer a cheaper ride if they could get one. But they're obviously
satisfied with current prices.

In article ,
Fred J. McCall wrote:
:Only because there's little demand for it from the traditional
roviders of launch system development funds.

Largely because they don't believe it can be done and don't want to
fund yet more development of another system that doesn't hit the
target (again).

And if you do it the way *they* traditionally do it, it probably can't be
done and it probably wouldn't hit the target. This doesn't mean it's
impossible, only that *they* can't do it.

Yes, there are people who will tell you that it *is* impossible. These
are people to whom it is unthinkable that the emperor is really standing
there with no clothes on. He just *can't* be naked, therefore he isn't.

Why would commercial users (in particular) stick with a higher-cost
system, all other things being equal?

Think it through. Today's commercial launch customers are people whose
business case closes even with today's high costs.

That being so, they are not really all that interested in lower costs.
They will take a cheaper ride if it comes along, yes, but they are not
interested in taking risks to help it happen.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |