Cost of launch and laws of physics

John Ordover wrote:
Rand, the person who says "it can't be done" is always totally right
until such time as the thing is done.

No. They were always wrong, since it was done.

The person who says 'it can't be done today' is always right until such
a think is done. Small differences do matter a great deal IRL.

It is your opinion that it can
be done - but that will remain nothing more than your opinion until
such time as it is done. Until that time, though, I will retain a
"you'll have to show me" attitude that I think is quite rational,

You don't have a 'you'll have to show me', you have a 'it can't be done'
attitude. And that is not rational.

large part because people who agree with you have been saying the
exactly the same things, in the same way, for a quarter of a century,
and we're no closer now than we were then.

I think we are closer, it looks more promising and seems to be getting
more so over time. There is a commercial space market which is putting a
downward pressure on price; this improves the market since the product
is overpriced right now. With the Russians entering the market more the
economics of getting into space is improving as is the regulatory
position. There is a growing recognition that private industry can
tackle this area. The X prize is raising public perception that this
isn't just pie-in-the-sky thing. There have been two commercial space
tourists. This was mostly in the last 10 years; things seem to have gone
more slowly before that. Even the internet has opened up the research
data to a wider audience; the chances of somebody putting the data
together into a successful vehicle has gone up quite significantly just
due to that.

On Mon, 11 Aug 2003 17:38:35 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Greg Kuperberg) made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

I think that that's exactly what Mary Shafer understands. After all,
she was NASA's flying qualities lead engineer of a real supersonic jet,
the SR-71 Blackbird. Which is not to say that she's necessarily right.
What I do mean is that she's not just a pundit, nor is she is sidelined
by a lack of funds or "FAA regulations". Her resume has legs.

That program has absolutely nothing to do with low-cost space
transport.

What I think is ironic is that when one pundit accuses another of lacking
engineering authority

Are you referring to Mr. Ordover as a "pundit"? Perhaps in the
strictest sense of the word, but he's provided no indication that he
understands the issues involved, and in fact has provided an abundance
of evidence for the opposite.

the Mary Shafers of the world aren't even part
of the discussion.

Sorry, but while Mary's career is admirable, I've seen no evidence
that she's been involved in studies on reducing launch costs.

--
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:

On Sun, 10 Aug 2003, George William Herbert wrote:

Date: 10 Aug 2003 14:50:41 -0700
From: George William Herbert
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
Subject: Cost of launch and laws of physics


We know RLV and CATS are *hard*. There have been examples
in both areas, and a number of technical failures.
But there are also clearly a large number of "failed
because we didn't get enough money to do it".
X-33 stands out as a pure technical failure, sure,
but over the 80s and 90s there were a number of
waves of projects proposed and launched to some
degree or another. Hell, even the X-33 program
is a no-test in and of itself: 2 of the 3 bids
which were made for it would not have failed
in the manner which the Lockheed X-33 vehicle did.
It was in attempting to try too many new technologies
too far past the existing tested and proven area
that the Lockheed vehicle failed.

-george william herbert




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The closest I know to an existence proof of cheap and reliable access to
space is the Kistler K1:

(a) It is fully reusable and extremely simple compared to the Space
Shuttle in all phases of its operation: stacking, rollout, fueling,
flight profile, staging, re-entry, and recovery. The estimates are
that it takes 1/10 the time and 1/40 the personnel to turn it
around for a flight making it 400 times simpler, or 80 times simpler
per pound of payload.

(b) It is 75% complete in terms of design, testing, and actual hardware
construction, and so is far more than a viewgraph, and far enough
along the development path that technical show stoppers are most
unlikely (especially given its conservative technology)

(c) The people doing it are head and shoulders above the current staff at
NASA as these are the very people who took us to the moon and back and
came out of retirement for this project headed by Dr. George Mueller
who headed manned space flight for NASA during the Apollo/Skylab era.
These people were picked when NASA was a major national priority,
have had an excellent track record, and are (now) free from the
horrible politics of NASA and the shuttle.

Now, instead of looking at orbital flight let us compare the X33 with what
we could have had instead: a very slightly modified Kistler 2nd stage.

If we replace the long nozzle NK33 with a short nozzle NK33, and reduce
the payload to 1 ton, the mass ratio increases from 7.5 to 9.8. With an
average ISP of 331 and a thrust of 170 tons, this fully reusable vehicle
should have an ideal dV of 7400 m/s, or a real dV of 5600 m/s, allowing
for 1800 m/s air and gravity losses. That amounts to a speed of about
12,500 mph, or Mach 16, which exceeds the most optimistic projections for
the X33 (Mach 15.5).

Now, how much would it cost? The entire K1 program which involves 5
complete vehicles, two launch facilities, and full commercial operation is
estimated at $1 billion, and a fair amount of that is due to large delays
due to (non-technical) external financial circumstances. Given that the
2nd stage is 1/3 the size, has 1/4 the number of engines, 1/2 the stages,
needs only one launch site, has 1/2 the number of recovery operations,
2/5
the number of vehicles, and would not need full commercial operation, its
cost should be a very small fraction of $1 billion, say $200-300 million.


So, for 1/5 the cost we could have had a fully working sub-orbital vehicle
compared with the $1.3 billion X33 which was abandoned after its
extravagant technologies could not be realized.

I would say that NASA was totally out to lunch with the X33, and the K1 is
far more relevant for costs and reliability given current technology than
anything NASA says.

--Larry

John Ordover wrote:
Rand, the person who says "it can't be done" is always totally right
until such time as the thing is done.

The irony of a medium such as Usenet is that when one is speechless, one
must actively announce the fact.

I'm speechless. The level of illogic demonstrated by this claim would be
amusing, if it weren't attached to an argument that so many otherwise
reasonable people agree with.

On Wed, 13 Aug 2003 22:18:37 -0700, in a place far, far away, Mary
Shafer made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

Sorry, but while Mary's career is admirable, I've seen no evidence
that she's been involved in studies on reducing launch costs.

And since you don't know about it, it never happened? Have you
checked on every assignment I had in my thirty-plus years?

Of course not. I said what I said.

I don't claim to be omniscient.

I have been involved in studies on reducing operational costs. We did
a good job, too, reducing costs markedly while increasing operational
readiness significantly.

And I was on an advisory team to the VTOL rocket project (can't
remember the acronym-Delta Clipper, maybe?). Cost reduction without
reliability reduction was a big part of our task. I know they took at
least one piece of advice I gave them, for example.

OK, so what's your specific critique as to why we can't dramatically
reduce costs with dramatic increases in activity?

--
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:

Of course not. I said what I said.

I don't claim to be omniscient.

Actually, you often do, in a way - you claim to know that profitable
space travel is absolutely possible, while making no convining case
for it and having nothing but your faith to support it.

Speaking of which, I started reading this group in November of 2002 -
Rand, you're saying the exact same things you were months ago. Tell
me - how much progress has been made? Have any of the promised
launches happened? Anyone claimed the X-Prize you say is the first
step to profitable space travel? Or have many efforts collapsed or
run out of money?

Set an outer limit, Rand - one year, two years, three years - when is
this profitable space travel going to happen? Time is money, after
all.

We may achieve profitable space travel, Rand, but we won't with
current technology and with so little financial motivation.

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 12 Aug 2003 20:52:59 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Derek Lyons) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

John Ordover cant back up his claims with logic and facts. Look im
right,
because you havent done it yet.

And frankly, Rand cannot either.

Of course I can, and I have. You said yourself there were "piles of
studies."

Actually, I don't think you have. You've referred to studies which turn out
to be highly dubious in origin or private to investors only. None of which
counters Mr Ordover's FUD.

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 14:59:19 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
"Dave" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

John Ordover cant back up his claims with logic and facts. Look im
right,
because you havent done it yet.

And frankly, Rand cannot either.

Of course I can, and I have. You said yourself there were "piles of
studies."

Actually, I don't think you have. You've referred to studies which turn out
to be highly dubious in origin or private to investors only.

Well, if you think that studies by Boeing, or Rockwell, or the
Aerospace Corporation are "highly dubious in origin," perhaps.

None of which
counters Mr Ordover's FUD.

Yes, and FUD is all it is.

--
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
...
On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 14:59:19 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
"Dave" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

John Ordover cant back up his claims with logic and facts. Look im
right,
because you havent done it yet.

And frankly, Rand cannot either.

Of course I can, and I have. You said yourself there were "piles of
studies."

Actually, I don't think you have. You've referred to studies which turn
out
to be highly dubious in origin or private to investors only.

Well, if you think that studies by Boeing, or Rockwell, or the
Aerospace Corporation are "highly dubious in origin," perhaps.

Well actually yes, it largely depends on what the study was designed to do.

Actually, the thought of you citing any survey by these organisations in
particularly is amusingly ironic.

But, do you have references to the raw data I can look at without spending
the $2500 it would have cost me for the last "cite" you gave me?

On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 18:22:02 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Dave
O'Neill" dave @ NOSPAM atomicrazor . com made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Actually, I don't think you have. You've referred to studies which turn
out
to be highly dubious in origin or private to investors only.

Well, if you think that studies by Boeing, or Rockwell, or the
Aerospace Corporation are "highly dubious in origin," perhaps.

Well actually yes, it largely depends on what the study was designed to do.

Actually, the thought of you citing any survey by these organisations in
particularly is amusingly ironic.

Perhaps, but I wonder what source you wouldn't consider "highly
dubious in origin."

But, do you have references to the raw data I can look at without spending
the $2500 it would have cost me for the last "cite" you gave me?

No, not off hand, though some of Jay Penn's papers may be available
somewhere on line.

--
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: