Armstrong lauds another spaceman

In article ,
Fred J. McCall wrote:
:...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.

Yes, because almost nobody has tried. The only great progress seen in
that department so far was the introduction of Russian launchers.

We'll see how SpaceX does.

It seems that EVERY new launch system I can remember promised
to reduce cost of getting a pound to LEO to the $100 range.

Uh, no, practically none of the new launch systems which were actually
*carried through to operational status* made any such promise. (The
EELVs made far less ambitious promises of very modest cost reductions.)
"You can't win if you don't play."

is still at least an order of magnitude away, even using 'old' Russian
technology which they are willing to 'under price in order to get hard
currency...

Whether Russian launchers are actually underpriced is not clear. They
*are* inherently cheaper than Western designs, due to more automation on
production lines and much less manpower-intensive operations, even if you
disregard the small matter of lower wages.

Current costs for most launchers apparently are in the
$5,000-$10,000 per pound range.

Russian launchers are already well below that range, possibly a long way
below it if you have a sharp negotiator and are doing something unusual
(that is, something where they can't be accused of undercutting Western
competitors if they offer you a big price break).

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...

Hardly surprising, given how little real innovation there has been in
launcher design, and how few truly new launch systems have been developed,
for most of that history.

The stunning cost reductions in electronics in the same period were not
achieved by refining production methods for vacuum tubes. Nor did they
come from pioneering initiatives by vacuum-tube manufacturers.

:Indeed, you can make a half-plausible argument that this is already true:
:that even at today's launch prices, it makes sense to accept mass growth
:to save engineering man-years.

But not much. When the vehicles still cost you hundreds of millions
of dollars, it simply doesn't make much sense to put 'cheap' payloads
on them.

When the payloads cost billions or even tens of billions to develop, it
can and does make sense to buy more hundred-million launches to reduce
development costs (even disregarding the possibility of launch-cost
reductions via bulk discounts). Except in a few vaguely-mature areas
like comsats, the payloads cost *much* more than the launches now.

...However, we have to face the fact that the overwhelming
majority of taxpayers simply don't care about space and consider it a
waste of money.

The overwhelming majority of taxpayers like space exploration (hint: ISS
is not doing exploration) and think modest funding for it is a good idea.
What they don't support is the sort of funding that would be needed to do
manned exploration the JSC way.

The logical conclusion from that is that we can't do it the JSC way, not
that we can't do it at all.

Karpoff's study of the various 19th-century arctic expeditions is
:notable: the single strongest predictor of success was private funding,
:mostly because it meant unified, consistent leadership throughout.)

But to attract a lot of private funding there needs to be some
significant economic advantage over current providers.

Very few of the arctic expeditions promised any sort of economic return
at all. Private funding doesn't have to mean profit-making ventures
(although it does help -- profitable projects can easily get up into
the billions, while non-profit private funding tends to top out in the
low hundreds of millions, last I heard).
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

(Henry Spencer) wrote:
The overwhelming majority of taxpayers like space exploration (hint: ISS
is not doing exploration) and think modest funding for it is a good idea.

The overwhelming majority of (US) taxpayers like the stunts and
spectaculars that they have been misled into believing constitute
exploration. Real exploration would bore the taxpayers (and most
space fanboys) to tears.

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

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

Henry Spencer wrote:
Very few of the arctic expeditions promised any sort of economic
return at all. Private funding doesn't have to mean profit-making
ventures (although it does help -- profitable projects can easily
get up into the billions, while non-profit private funding tends to
top out in the low hundreds of millions, last I heard).

I wonder how much naming rights could be sold for?

Note the origin of the name of the northernmost point in mainland
Canada.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.

In article ,
Keith F. Lynch wrote:
I wonder how much naming rights could be sold for?
Note the origin of the name of the northernmost point in mainland
Canada.

If memory serves, there are a number of features in Antarctica named for
various expedition sponsors. (And I just noticed, looking at a map, that
among the mountains there is the mysterious "Executive Committee Range".
I kid you not.)

Selling naming rights would be hampered somewhat by the fact that names on
astronomical bodies are not generally recognized until/unless approved by
the IAU. That adds an element of uncertainty to the process.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

(Henry Spencer) wrote:

:In article ,
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
::...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.
:
:Yes, because almost nobody has tried.

I remember original Shuttle promises of prices in the range of $100/lb
to orbit. Then they started compromising.

:The only great progress seen in
:that department so far was the introduction of Russian launchers.

And this is a fluke.

:It seems that EVERY new launch system I can remember promised
:to reduce cost of getting a pound to LEO to the $100 range.
:
:Uh, no, practically none of the new launch systems which were actually
:*carried through to operational status* made any such promise. (The
:EELVs made far less ambitious promises of very modest cost reductions.)
:"You can't win if you don't play."

Well, not by the time they actually built operational hardware they
didn't. However, one of the big reasons why Shuttle got built was the
original contention that it would be orders of magnitude cheaper.
That was before the compromises started and we got the current system,
of course. There were originally plans to build a small fixed number
(5, I think, but I'm not sure) of Shuttles for NASA and then to
license their manufacture for private purposes.

Never happened, of course, since the cost to orbit was just like every
other launcher of the time and there was no comparative advantage at
all (and the Shuttle as built required FAR too much 'refurbishment'
after each flight to operate economically).

:is still at least an order of magnitude away, even using 'old' Russian
:technology which they are willing to 'under price in order to get hard
:currency...
:
:Whether Russian launchers are actually underpriced is not clear. They
:*are* inherently cheaper than Western designs, due to more automation on
roduction lines and much less manpower-intensive operations, even if you
:disregard the small matter of lower wages.

Is the 'more automation' claim really true? I find that rather hard
to believe, given the general state of Russian manufacturing. I would
think the price advantage was due to some small economies of scale
(they do build more of them), lower wage costs, and a huge currency
advantage when selling for hard currency.

:Current costs for most launchers apparently are in the
:$5,000-$10,000 per pound range.
:
:Russian launchers are already well below that range, possibly a long way
:below it if you have a sharp negotiator and are doing something unusual
that is, something where they can't be accused of undercutting Western
:competitors if they offer you a big price break).

That seems to depend on where you're going (and I misread a table when
I got my figure above - it was for GSO vice LEO).

: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...
:
:Hardly surprising, given how little real innovation there has been in
:launcher design, and how few truly new launch systems have been developed,
:for most of that history.

Yes, but one is left wondering why there hasn't been such innovation
and push to lower costs.

It seems to me that this is a 'chicken and egg' sort of problem.
Payloads are expensive because launchers are expensive and if you're
going to spend that kind of money to get your payload up, that payload
better be engineered to death to maximize life span and such.
Launchers stay expensive because nobody wants to put their expensive
payload up on a cheap rocket for fear that the rocket will fail. So
the rockets don't get changed much, either.

::Indeed, you can make a half-plausible argument that this is already true:
::that even at today's launch prices, it makes sense to accept mass growth
::to save engineering man-years.
:
:But not much. When the vehicles still cost you hundreds of millions
:of dollars, it simply doesn't make much sense to put 'cheap' payloads
:on them.
:
:When the payloads cost billions or even tens of billions to develop, it
:can and does make sense to buy more hundred-million launches to reduce
:development costs (even disregarding the possibility of launch-cost
:reductions via bulk discounts). Except in a few vaguely-mature areas
:like comsats, the payloads cost *much* more than the launches now.

In other words, when taxpayer pockets are available price of the
payload is no object? This philosophy is what has hurt planetary
science so badly, just by the way. The era of the 'giant probes'
meant that there couldn't be very many of them in the pipeline because
the budget for billion dollar probe programs just wasn't large enough
to sustain that.

:...However, we have to face the fact that the overwhelming
:majority of taxpayers simply don't care about space and consider it a
:waste of money.
:
:The overwhelming majority of taxpayers like space exploration (hint: ISS
:is not doing exploration) and think modest funding for it is a good idea.
:What they don't support is the sort of funding that would be needed to do
:manned exploration the JSC way.

The overwhelming majority of taxpayers like space exploration. What
they don't like is PAYING for space exploration at the expense of
something else. When it comes to ranking the budget, where does space
exploration fall in the list?

:The logical conclusion from that is that we can't do it the JSC way, not
:that we can't do it at all.

Unless you propose funding it privately, I'm not sure what you're
saying here.

:Karpoff's study of the various 19th-century arctic expeditions is
::notable: the single strongest predictor of success was private funding,
::mostly because it meant unified, consistent leadership throughout.)
:
:But to attract a lot of private funding there needs to be some
:significant economic advantage over current providers.
:
:Very few of the arctic expeditions promised any sort of economic return
:at all. Private funding doesn't have to mean profit-making ventures
although it does help -- profitable projects can easily get up into
:the billions, while non-profit private funding tends to top out in the
:low hundreds of millions, last I heard).

And that sort of private funding simply isn't available for
'speculative' things like space exploration.

--
"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

Fred J. McCall wrote:

I remember original Shuttle promises of prices in the range of $100/lb
to orbit. Then they started compromising.

Even without compromises it wouldn't have reached $100/lb, or anywhere
close to that. The whole idea was just junk, which is why NASA is not
being tasked with developing a replacement.

Paul

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
: I remember original Shuttle promises of prices in the range of $100/lb
: to orbit. Then they started compromising.
:
:Even without compromises it wouldn't have reached $100/lb, or anywhere
:close to that. The whole idea was just junk, which is why NASA is not
:being tasked with developing a replacement.

Oh, I don't think it would have, either. That is what was being
promised, though, and it would have come a lot closer if they hadn't
knowingly opted for a design that required huge maintenance and
operating costs in order to try to keep the initial capital costs
down.

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

"Fred J. McCall" wrote:

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: I remember original Shuttle promises of prices in the range of $100/lb
: to orbit. Then they started compromising.
:
:Even without compromises it wouldn't have reached $100/lb, or anywhere
:close to that. The whole idea was just junk, which is why NASA is not
:being tasked with developing a replacement.

Oh, I don't think it would have, either. That is what was being
promised, though, and it would have come a lot closer if they hadn't
knowingly opted for a design that required huge maintenance and
operating costs in order to try to keep the initial capital costs
down.

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.

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

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

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.

Paul

"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