Armstrong lauds another spaceman

h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

: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.

Not nearly as much, since there's nothing to puncture the fantasy and
let reality in until they actually have to build something.

::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?

That's how I read the "...there's little demand for it from the
traditional providers of launch system development funds" comment,
yes.

: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.

Just going by what you say, Rand. If you don't mean it, don't say it.

: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
refer a cheaper ride if they could get one. But they're obviously
:satisfied with current prices.

We're obviously using a different definition for 'demand'.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 16:29:59 -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:

::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?

That's how I read the "...there's little demand for it from the
traditional providers of launch system development funds" comment,
yes.

Then you misread it.

: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.

Just going by what you say, Rand. If you don't mean it, don't say it.

I didn't say it.

: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
refer a cheaper ride if they could get one. But they're obviously
:satisfied with current prices.

We're obviously using a different definition for 'demand'.

Obviously. I'm using it the sense that they are willing to purchase
at the current price, and are not demanding a lower one. That doesn't
mean that they wouldn't prefer to pay less, if they thought they
could. They're not stupid, but they're also not sufficiently
dissatisfied with the current prices to make major investments and
accept risk in lowering them. Also, I said that there's no demand
from the traditional providers of launch development funds. That's a
different group of people from the purchasers of launch services.

h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

:On Fri, 10 Feb 2006 16:29:59 -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:
:
:::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?
:
:That's how I read the "...there's little demand for it from the
:traditional providers of launch system development funds" comment,
:yes.
:
:Then you misread it.

Or you miswrote it.

::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.
:
:Just going by what you say, Rand. If you don't mean it, don't say it.
:
:I didn't say it.

Well, perhaps you didn't MEAN to say it....

::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
:refer a cheaper ride if they could get one. But they're obviously
::satisfied with current prices.
:
:We're obviously using a different definition for 'demand'.
:
:Obviously. I'm using it the sense that they are willing to purchase
:at the current price, and are not demanding a lower one.

Which is no definition at all, since 'demand' implicitly includes 'at
a given price'. The way you have to make this determination is to
look at demand at the current price vs demand at the lower price and
use THAT to determine whether it makes sense to develop something that
can operate at the cheaper price (including business captured from
competitors, of course).

See pretty much any Econ 102 book.

:That doesn't
:mean that they wouldn't prefer to pay less, if they thought they
:could. They're not stupid, but they're also not sufficiently
:dissatisfied with the current prices to make major investments and
:accept risk in lowering them. Also, I said that there's no demand
:from the traditional providers of launch development funds. That's a
:different group of people from the purchasers of launch services.

Yes, well that group would generally be the government, which is not
real 'demand-based' in any event.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn