NASA panel says US cannot do space any more.

In article ,
says...

On Monday, June 9, 2014 3:27:52 AM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
Bull$hit. A smaller, fully reusable, launch vehicle will beat a large,

expendable, launch vehicle on cost.

You are setting up a straw man here.

You have ignored that I'm speaking of large fully reusable vehicles
vs. small fully reusable vehicles.

I still disagree with you. You're putting the cart before the horse.
Large fully reusable vehicles will have higher development costs,
construction costs, infrastructure costs, and maintenance costs than a
smaller vehicle. Building such a vehicle without a market is a risky
proposition indeed. There is no existing market for a large launch
vehicle of any kind to exploit. Without a market to attack, you'll find
precious few investors for such a project.

So, when you're putting up 420 tonne solar power satellites, you need
an 11,000 tonne fully reusable multi-stage rocket.

SPS (with power beamed to earth) has never been attempted. Again,
you're providing a solution to a problem which does not yet exist.
"Going big early" does not make sense in this situation.

A fully reusable sized for the existing DOD and comsat markets is a more
economically viable approach. Sure, you could consider that vehicle a
"proof of concept" for a much bigger vehicle, but you're still faced
with the problem of finding a market for the much larger vehicle.

Note that SpaceX has solved precious few technical problems in
spaceflight. They've largely been repeating what others have done.
They could have skipped Falcon 1 and attempted Falcon 9 from the
beginning. But, assuming the same number of launch failures for either
approach (new company learning the ropes), they'd have burned through
much more money by attempting the larger, more expensive, vehicle first.
Given how close SpaceX was to failing as a company (one more Falcon 1
failure was all it would have taken), they surely would have failed if
they'd have attempted Falcon 9 first.


Also, the "modular rocket" argument you make has *never* panned out in
reality. Engines optimized for a first stage are not the same as
engines optimized for vacuum. Engines that operate from sea level to
vacuum can be tricky (e.g. SSME). It's quite clear that you don't
understand these issues because you're not an aerospace engineer.

Other factors enter into the design of these stages which quite often
result in different propellants for lower stages versus upper stages.
Again, this arises due to the different requirements for the stages.
You can't dismiss those with the sort of simple minded math you keep
posting here. If that offends you, I'm sorry. But if I can see how
oversimplified your math is, with my mere bachelors of science in
aerospace engineering, then "real" engineers with PHD's in the same
would surely laugh out loud at your simple approaches to these very
complex problems.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

In article ,
says...

So were lots of things that it turns out weren't economically viable.


No kidding. SpaceX *barely* survived the development of Falcon 1 due to
Musk's limited supply of money. If SpaceX would have attempted Falcon 9
right off the bat (which is much smaller than what Mook is proposing),
they'd have surely gone bankrupt like so many dozens of launch start-ups
before them.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

In article ,
says...

Reducing the cost of rocket lift and the cost of energy changes economics. 3D print technology combined with personal supercomputers that accurately model complex systems, make sophisticated systems routinely available.

Low cost solar power, making cryogenic hydrogen and oxygen from any available source of water, make energy low-cost.

A 5730 nautical mile ballistic hop requires 95% orbital velocity and a 20 degree burnout angle. This takes you from New York City to Tokyo in 20 minutes. A hydrogen oxygen single stage rocket requires an 81.7% propellant fraction.

With an 8% structure fraction this leaves 10.3% payload fraction. So, a 129 passenger ship, capable of carrying 29 tonnes of cargo or 129 passengers in two class arrangement, or 48 passengers in superior class arrangement, would have the following description;

29.0 tonne - payload (51.0 m3)
281.6 tonne - Take off weight
22.5 tonne - inert structure
35.4 tonnes - LH2 (505.7 m3)
194.7 tonnes - LOX (170.8 m3)

And if we go for a Horizontal Take off and Horizontal Landing, we have something like this;

http://www.warbirdforum.com/paxwing.htm

Filled with hydrogen and oxygen propellant in the wing, a linear aerospike engine on either side of the observation platform in the tail.

371.6 square meters of wing area. Looking from above, 64 square meters of cabin space in the centre. 39 sq meters on either side dedicated to LOX. 115 sq meters on either side dedicated to LH2.

The linear aerospike is blended into the trailing edge of the flying wing so that it produces through laser action, external combustion supersonic propulsion. Riding the shock wave once you get to supersonic speeds. Very similar to squeezing a pumpkin seed between your fingers to cause it to jet out.

http://www.warbirdforum.com/paxwing.htm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0Y0FS8Z1Qk

Four J2 turbopump systems are required with 80 combustors of the type described here, with 20 on each side, above and below the trailing edge of the wing at the centre of the wing. Varying flow in each combustor provides thrust vectoring.

The rocket is used to get up to Mach 0.8 and then external combustion ramjet, riding the shock wave over the wing, from Mach 0.8 to Mach 6, climbing all the while.

The video shows an enclosed scramjet, which is wasteful of structure. An external scramjet that carries out the same process with an aerospike arrangement is superior in many respects. However, no videos are available for public viewing of this process.

Its basically an aerospike rocket nozzle that runs hydrogen rich, and has the ability to detonate air fuel mixture flowing over well defined regions of the flow shock regions;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxwMNWrvttU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yq1JohSaI3g

Then, as altitude and speed are gained, run up LOX flow rate again to accelerate to terminal velocity at 80 km altitude maintaining a 2 gee acceleration achieving terminal speed in 6 minutes 17.2 seconds.

You are in zero gee for the 20 minute ride. Then, you slow down, aerobraking, at a high angle of attack slowing at 2 gee and come in for a horizontal landing at your destination using your engine to fly optimally through your flight regime.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ub6U9CL0K_A

Then refuel at your destination and return 129 passengers the other way in two hours.

Over the course of 24 hours you make 6 flights each way, carrying 1548 passengers each day. You have a 12 hour service period every 7 days - 10,062 passengers per week. Designed for 26,000 flight cycles.

More b.s. "math" which ignores economics. You're nothing if not
consistent. Too bad you're consistently wrong.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 11:49:04 PM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,

says...



On Monday, June 9, 2014 3:27:52 AM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:

In article ,

Bull$hit. A smaller, fully reusable, launch vehicle will beat a large,



expendable, launch vehicle on cost.



You are setting up a straw man here.



You have ignored that I'm speaking of large fully reusable vehicles

vs. small fully reusable vehicles.



I still disagree with you.

Alright. No harm in that.

You're putting the cart before the horse.

What horse exactly? This is a statement that has no meaning in the context of this conversation.


Large fully reusable vehicles will have higher development costs,
construction costs, infrastructure costs, and maintenance costs than a
smaller vehicle.

Sure, bigger vehicles cost more than smaller vehicles all things being equal. However, what numbers do you have in mind? What technology? WHat are your start up costs?

Fact is, there is an optimal size one can build, based on the mission you have for it, the lift capacity needed and the flight rate. These are what you need to know before you even talk about size.


Building such a vehicle without a market is a risky
proposition indeed.

This is another straw man argument. I mentioned the markets before I mentioned the rockets. So, you're hoping that a casual reader doesn't remember that, just to make a bogus point.


There is no existing market for a large launch
vehicle of any kind to exploit.

How large? What market? Its obvious that rocket builders must make their own market.

I pointed out in an earlier post that a qualified vendor like SpaceX or any of the aerospace companies could spend about $100 million to promote beamed power from space to nuclear plant operators and coal plant operators as a solution to long term supply issues. They could get off-take contracts signed under the right conditions that are worth $7 trillion. They could then interest the energy speculators in buying pieces of these contracts. This would raise $3 trillion. 10% of this amount is enough to buy up all the aerospace companies, organize them most efficiently to your needs for a power satellite, and deploy a dozen very large satellites that fulfill the contracts signed.

Success with this programme would allow you to orbit six more large satellites and generate another $3 trillion in value.

This money would then be used to deploy 52 more satellites that replace the transporation fuel market. This would generate $20 trillion in value, and allow you to take over the failed banking system and straighten it out.

Without a market to attack, you'll find
precious few investors for such a project.

You need to be a qualified vendor. You then need to find a motivated buyer for something you can deliver. Power satellites beaming energy to nuclear and coal fired plant operators fulfil this requirement. You have them sign off take contracts, and then go to the energy markets and sell part of those contracts to fund development. The development is so large, you want to make rather than buy things, so this will lead to a consolidation of the aerospace industry to organize efficiently to build the launchers and satellites needed on a scale and a pace that's most efficient.


So, when you're putting up 420 tonne solar power satellites, you need
an 11,000 tonne fully reusable multi-stage rocket.



SPS (with power beamed to earth) has never been attempted.

Beamed power has been done. A test programme will precede development of a larger system.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/130453929/Power-Satellite

http://www.scribd.com/doc/35439593/S...-Satellite-GEO
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35449912/S...tellite-Orbits

Which requires a launcher

http://www.scribd.com/doc/30943696/ETDHLRLV

Along with a business structure and technology that makes sense

http://www.scribd.com/doc/20024019/W...to-Mok-FINAL-1
http://www.scribd.com/doc/51709162/Japan-Project
http://www.scribd.com/doc/59522868/Trust
http://www.naturalgasasia.com/exxon-...s-in-indonesia
http://www.scribd.com/doc/22490014/Sugico-Mok-Plan-3


Again,
you're providing a solution to a problem which does not yet exist.

TEPCO shut down 52 nuclear power plants in Japan and suffered billions of dollars of losses. The world's financial system is on the brink of collapse because there's not enough low cost energy around. The world's leading governments are angling to strike one another to get at the last dregs of energy on the planet, and shut their competitors out.

The energy problem has been known to exist since the 1950s. It is long overdue for solution. One solution that can work in the time frame left to us is the development of large solar power satellites.

Governments won't do it. Its up to private industry. $100 million spent correctly should bear considerable profit.

"Going big early" does not make sense in this situation.


Without specific numbers, your statement is meaningless. Big compared to what? What that size and not another? Real engineers do real calculations and have real reasons for the things they say. The aerospike programme carried out by Boeing in the early 1970s showed that annular and linear aerospike engines could be made any size from a common element. Their tests used a J2 pump set and a LOX/LH2 fuel mixture. If you have your tooling in place for this size component, you build this size component going forward. Its just that simple.

Now, the Saturn S1 and S2C stages were both built at Michoud. The same facility that built the external tank. When you have this, and the proven experience of the Boeing folks, it just makes sense to put something together with this and build a common core booster system around that capability.

SpaceX built their systems around TRWs asset base from the 1950s and 60s. You cannot say this or that size is better or not until you;

1) know what your mission is;
2) know what technology you're going to use;
3) know what your tool set and skill sets are;

The USA has spend over $600 billion developing space faring capabilities. The assets, the tooling, the know-how, the skills, are all held by private companies. Many have eroded. Many have not. Many could be recovered quickly at low cost. But a rational decision can be made to back a programme by a private entity, that would get an energy programme going. It would be risky, but for people who drill holes in the ground and hope oil comes out of them, it would be a level of risk they would accept, once the business structure were in place.


A fully reusable sized for the existing DOD and comsat markets is a more
economically viable approach.

The DOD will not exist in the next 20 years. The demand for energy will.

Sure, you could consider that vehicle a
"proof of concept" for a much bigger vehicle,

Its a requirement of any reasonable programme. Even that is limited by the skills and tools you're planning on using. For example, if you are constrained by the RL-10 engine, you won't want to make it smaller, unless you've got some new tech - which there is some on the horizon.

but you're still faced
with the problem of finding a market for the much larger vehicle.

You are creating a straw man, since I clearly stated at the outset, that rocket makers needed to create their own market and not rely on others. So, this came totally out of left field.



Note that SpaceX has solved precious few technical problems in
spaceflight. They've largely been repeating what others have done.

We all sit on the shoulders of giants. Over $600 billion has been spent on the civilian space programme. Over $3.5 trillion according to one study has been spent on the ICBM programmes. How can you not repeat the good ideas of others in that context?

That's like saying Bill Gates just used an Intel chip and didn't do anything exciting with it. lol.

Fact is, I don't see anyone other than SPaceX supporting recoverable boosters, 3D printed parts, and advanced solid modelling integrated with simulation to shorten the development time and cost as they have done.


They could have skipped Falcon 1 and attempted Falcon 9 from the
beginning. But, assuming the same number of launch failures for either
approach (new company learning the ropes), they'd have burned through
much more money by attempting the larger, more expensive, vehicle first.

Another straw man being constructed here. You talk like someone said something against the Falcon 1 and Falcon 9? Fact is the Falcon 1 is retired and the Falcon 9 will be too once the heavy if flying, and that will go away when the Mars Colonial Transporter is flying. A vehicle that is larger than the vehicle I have proposed to build around the Shuttle hardware.

Given how close SpaceX was to failing as a company (one more Falcon 1
failure was all it would have taken), they surely would have failed if
they'd have attempted Falcon 9 first.

So? You are constructing a straw man to knock down so that you can avoid discussion of the issues we're talking about.


Also, the "modular rocket" argument you make has *never* panned out in
reality.

Dude, its the basis of all major development today. You fail to realize that a modular rocket is a type of multistage rocket which features components that can be interchanged for specific mission requirements. Several such rockets use similar concepts such as unified modules to minimize expenses on manufacturing, transportation and for optimization of support infrastructure for flight preparations. The Atlas V, the Delta IV, the Angara, the Falcon Heavy are all modular rockets and are being developed to take advantage of the concept.

Engines optimized for a first stage are not the same as
engines optimized for vacuum.

You're talking about stagnation problems a low pressure, poorly designed nozzle, has. These have been resolved with modern engines, and modern nozzle design. The solution of these problems is what made the Common Core Booster possible.

Engines that operate from sea level to
vacuum can be tricky (e.g. SSME).

Obviously you are not up to speed on the current state of the art when it comes to nozzle design and modern engine design.

It's quite clear that you don't
understand these issues because you're not an aerospace engineer.

I am an aerospace engineer. haha - Are you?

http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view...=ppro_viewmore



Other factors enter into the design of these stages which quite often
result in different propellants for lower stages versus upper stages.

Yes, I took the course on the application of the calculus of variations to optimize stage performance. I also have over 40 years in practical industry experience and know what is important and what is not.

Again, this arises due to the different requirements for the stages.

Its knowing these requirements and how to nuance them to reduce costs to an absolute minimum for the SYSTEM that's important. You're just calling names and constructing straw man arguments. haha - do you have anything important or meaningful to say? Or are you just wasting everyone's time with bull****?

You can't dismiss those with the sort of simple minded math you keep
posting here.

Another straw man argument. No one's dismissing anything. Anyone who thinks you can build a spacecraft without math is mad.

If that offends you, I'm sorry.

Yeah, I can feel your pain - NOT - lol.

You're a trip man. A real trip.


But if I can see how
oversimplified your math is, with my mere bachelors of science in
aerospace engineering, then "real" engineers with PHD's in the same
would surely laugh out loud at your simple approaches to these very
complex problems.

Argument from presumed authority, haha - pretty weak - you got nothing of substance to say. Nothing.

Sounds like you want a lesson in multi-variate system optimization or something. lol. Would that make things alright for you Jeffie?

You talk like you think that will change the delta vee requirements computed by the Vis Viva equation between two orbits or the overall mass ratio needed for a LOX/LH2 rocket to attain that delta vee! Maybe you should go back for a refresher course, oh glorious real engineer. lol.


Jeff

--

"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would

magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper

than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in

and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

You got a job Jeff? Just wondering. You act like a guy that's never had a job. At least not one in the aerospace business.

On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 11:53:55 PM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,

says...



Reducing the cost of rocket lift and the cost of energy changes economics. 3D print technology combined with personal supercomputers that accurately model complex systems, make sophisticated systems routinely available.



Low cost solar power, making cryogenic hydrogen and oxygen from any available source of water, make energy low-cost.



A 5730 nautical mile ballistic hop requires 95% orbital velocity and a 20 degree burnout angle. This takes you from New York City to Tokyo in 20 minutes. A hydrogen oxygen single stage rocket requires an 81.7% propellant fraction.



With an 8% structure fraction this leaves 10.3% payload fraction. So, a 129 passenger ship, capable of carrying 29 tonnes of cargo or 129 passengers in two class arrangement, or 48 passengers in superior class arrangement, would have the following description;



29.0 tonne - payload (51.0 m3)

281.6 tonne - Take off weight

22.5 tonne - inert structure

35.4 tonnes - LH2 (505.7 m3)

194.7 tonnes - LOX (170.8 m3)



And if we go for a Horizontal Take off and Horizontal Landing, we have something like this;



http://www.warbirdforum.com/paxwing.htm



Filled with hydrogen and oxygen propellant in the wing, a linear aerospike engine on either side of the observation platform in the tail.



371.6 square meters of wing area. Looking from above, 64 square meters of cabin space in the centre. 39 sq meters on either side dedicated to LOX. 115 sq meters on either side dedicated to LH2.



The linear aerospike is blended into the trailing edge of the flying wing so that it produces through laser action, external combustion supersonic propulsion. Riding the shock wave once you get to supersonic speeds. Very similar to squeezing a pumpkin seed between your fingers to cause it to jet out.



http://www.warbirdforum.com/paxwing.htm



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0Y0FS8Z1Qk



Four J2 turbopump systems are required with 80 combustors of the type described here, with 20 on each side, above and below the trailing edge of the wing at the centre of the wing. Varying flow in each combustor provides thrust vectoring.



The rocket is used to get up to Mach 0.8 and then external combustion ramjet, riding the shock wave over the wing, from Mach 0.8 to Mach 6, climbing all the while.



The video shows an enclosed scramjet, which is wasteful of structure. An external scramjet that carries out the same process with an aerospike arrangement is superior in many respects. However, no videos are available for public viewing of this process.



Its basically an aerospike rocket nozzle that runs hydrogen rich, and has the ability to detonate air fuel mixture flowing over well defined regions of the flow shock regions;



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxwMNWrvttU



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yq1JohSaI3g



Then, as altitude and speed are gained, run up LOX flow rate again to accelerate to terminal velocity at 80 km altitude maintaining a 2 gee acceleration achieving terminal speed in 6 minutes 17.2 seconds.



You are in zero gee for the 20 minute ride. Then, you slow down, aerobraking, at a high angle of attack slowing at 2 gee and come in for a horizontal landing at your destination using your engine to fly optimally through your flight regime.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ub6U9CL0K_A



Then refuel at your destination and return 129 passengers the other way in two hours.



Over the course of 24 hours you make 6 flights each way, carrying 1548 passengers each day. You have a 12 hour service period every 7 days - 10,062 passengers per week. Designed for 26,000 flight cycles.



More b.s. "math" which ignores economics.

Economic analysis seeks to gain an understanding of the processes that govern the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services in an exchange economy through the use of math. One must use math if they are to have any understanding whatever of economics.

You're nothing if not
consistent. Too bad you're consistently wrong.

More name calling - if you actually had something relevant to say, it would go here.


Jeff

--

"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would

magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper

than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in

and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 11:51:45 PM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,

says...



So were lots of things that it turns out weren't economically viable.





No kidding. SpaceX *barely* survived the development of Falcon 1 due to

Musk's limited supply of money. If SpaceX would have attempted Falcon 9

right off the bat (which is much smaller than what Mook is proposing),

they'd have surely gone bankrupt like so many dozens of launch start-ups

before them.


What do you imagine I was proposing?

Obviously your imagination is wrong.

Fact is, Elon Musk and SpaceX are doing far better than you are. I probably am too. You need a job Jeff?




Jeff

--

"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would

magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper

than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in

and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

In article ,
says...

What do you imagine I was proposing?

Obviously your imagination is wrong.

Fact is, Elon Musk and SpaceX are doing far better than you are. I probably am too. You need a job Jeff?


I thought you were still working on cheap energy?

http://www.mokenergy.com/

I couldn't find a picture on your site of one of your 66 foot diameter
solar hydrogen gas units. When will your first full size unit be
completed and producing hydrogen?

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

"William Mook" wrote in message
...

On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 11:49:04 PM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:

This is another straw man argument. I mentioned the markets before I
mentioned the rockets. So, you're hoping that a casual reader doesn't
remember that, just to make a bogus point.

No, you mentioned potential markets.

You want to build the 747 for the transatlantic market before the first DC-3
has flown.

Markets evolve. This is what Musk realizes and you don't seem to.

He's building Falcon 9 first. Then 9R, then Heavy... and I wouldn't be
surprised if in the back of his mind he's got a Falcon Superheavy drawn out.

But the idea is you can't talk "build it and they will come". It doesn't
work that way. And even then in the movie, they built a baseball field, not
a Quidditch field years before Rowling wrote a word.




There is no existing market for a large launch
vehicle of any kind to exploit.

How large? What market? Its obvious that rocket builders must make their
own market.

I pointed out in an earlier post that a qualified vendor like SpaceX or any
of the aerospace companies could spend about $100 million to promote beamed
power from space to nuclear plant operators and coal plant operators as a
solution to long term supply issues. They could get off-take contracts
signed under the right conditions that are worth $7 trillion. They could
then interest the energy speculators in buying pieces of these contracts.
This would raise $3 trillion. 10% of this amount is enough to buy up all
the aerospace companies, organize them most efficiently to your needs for a
power satellite, and deploy a dozen very large satellites that fulfill the
contracts signed.


Why aren't the energy speculators doing this already? What's stopping them?



Another straw man being constructed here. You talk like someone said
something against the Falcon 1 and Falcon 9? Fact is the Falcon 1 is
retired and the Falcon 9 will be too once the heavy if flying, and that
will go away when the Mars Colonial Transporter is flying. A vehicle that
is larger than the vehicle I have proposed to build around the Shuttle
hardware.


And that's his point, they're EVOLVING there, they're not building MCT
first.



You got a job Jeff? Just wondering. You act like a guy that's never had a
job. At least not one in the aerospace business.



Jeff's made his credentials quite clear here before.




--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

On 2014-06-11 11:31:28 +0000, Jeff Findley said:

In article ,
says...

Robert Love wrote:


Meanwhile look at what Elon has accomplished with a shoestring budget
and some innovative thinking

Musk's people are working 60 hours weeks continously. You'll never
get LM or Boeing or Northrup etc to do that.


Uh, why not? I've known people at those companies who have done
exactly that.

Agree with Fred. 60 hours a week is not unheard of for an engineering
project. To sustain that though, you need to compensate your employees
in some way that they'll accept. Note that this doesn't necessarily

And I've done it too but it was for a 1-4 week sprint, not continously.
People have lives. And if you have a family, you have many demands
on your time besides work. When I was young I was an NASA/JSC 3 shifts
and some weekends. Now 35+ years later, with no flight on the horizon,
no, ain't gonna happen.

On Thursday, June 12, 2014 12:23:47 PM UTC+12, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
"William Mook" wrote in message

...



On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 11:49:04 PM UTC+12, Jeff Findley wrote:



This is another straw man argument. I mentioned the markets before I

mentioned the rockets. So, you're hoping that a casual reader doesn't

remember that, just to make a bogus point.



No, you mentioned potential markets.


I mentioned developing markets before spending a dime. Just as the driller of oil wells arranges off-take contracts before speculating with his own money, so too rocket operators should arrange off-take contracts before speculating with their money (or demanding others speculate for them).


You want to build the 747 for the transatlantic market before the first DC-3
has flown.

You don't understand what I propose. Its rather simple. 52 nuclear reactors were shut down in Japan recently. Duke energy was forced to shut a third of all their coal fired plants. They are ideal early-adopters to sign an off-take contract with a qualified vendor for power if its delivered within a certain quality, a certain quantity and a certain time period. This is the start of a solid rocket development program using private money. With this order in hand, you then approach the markets that routinely speculate in new energy sources. There are several groups in various positions in the supply chain, these are approached with an appropriate contract, leveraged off the original off-take contract. At this point, the rocket operator, and satellite builder, has a solid financial resource to draw upon to develop their programme. This includes all test articles, brassboard and subscale system tests.




Markets evolve.

Obviously.

This is what Musk realizes and you don't seem to.

This assertion is as meaningless as it is baseless.


He's building Falcon 9 first. Then 9R, then Heavy...

Yes.

and I wouldn't be
surprised if in the back of his mind he's got a Falcon Superheavy drawn out.

Yes. He's spoken of it and written of it often.

But the idea is you can't talk "build it and they will come".

Another strawman. You don't get what I'm saying, because it draws upon knowledge you are unaware of. So, you see gaps. These are gaps in your knowledge, not gaps in what I'm saying.

It doesn't
work that way.

What way? The way your are describing in your strawman? Obviously not!

And even then in the movie, they built a baseball field, not
a Quidditch field years before Rowling wrote a word.

shrug You are responding to your strawman, nothing I've said. Sorry.


There is no existing market for a large launch
vehicle of any kind to exploit.



How large? What market? Its obvious that rocket builders must make their
own market.



I pointed out in an earlier post that a qualified vendor like SpaceX or any
of the aerospace companies could spend about $100 million to promote beamed
power from space to nuclear plant operators and coal plant operators as a
solution to long term supply issues. They could get off-take contracts
signed under the right conditions that are worth $7 trillion. They could
then interest the energy speculators in buying pieces of these contracts..
This would raise $3 trillion. 10% of this amount is enough to buy up all
the aerospace companies, organize them most efficiently to your needs for a
power satellite, and deploy a dozen very large satellites that fulfill the
contracts signed.


Why aren't the energy speculators doing this already? What's stopping them?

Some are, quietly.


Another straw man being constructed here. You talk like someone said
something against the Falcon 1 and Falcon 9? Fact is the Falcon 1 is
retired and the Falcon 9 will be too once the heavy if flying, and that
will go away when the Mars Colonial Transporter is flying. A vehicle that
is larger than the vehicle I have proposed to build around the Shuttle
hardware.


And that's his point, they're EVOLVING there, they're not building MCT
first.

So? He's doing the best he can given the regulatory environment he finds himself in. So, I don't fault anything he does. Musk actually was willing to take more risk than I was, which is why he got TRWs assets and I didn't. I would have demanded sufficient off-take contracts to cover all expected costs. That's the first step. I didn't go hat in hand to the government, or the defence department. I did get regulatory approval and then went to those parties with a history of energy speculation and asked what they needed to see in an energy off-take contract in order to fund the acquisition of TRW and certain other Hughes assets. Once I had that, I went to regulators and got the approvals I needed to be a credible (and legal) vendor of the services I had to offer. I then went to those who needed the service and got them to sign an off-take contract.

Since Musk has SpaceX, all he needs is contacts with the right financial parties who can be persuaded to finance off-take contracts of the right type.

Once that is in place, then he goes off and gets them signed up. Take the signed contracts back to the financier, get them funded under terms already agreed upon.

He's done that! In June 2010, Iridium signed the largest commercial rocket launch deal ever, a US$492 million contract with SpaceX to launch dozens of Iridium NEXT satellites on multiple Falcon 9 launchers in 2015-2017 from Vandenberg AFB Space Launch Complex 3.

http://www.space.com/8611-largest-co...ed-spacex.html

imho, Musk would benefit from larger deals. Thales Alenia Space received a $2.9 billion deal underwritten by Compagnie Française d'Assurance pour le Commerce Extérieur for Iridium's NEXT generation satellites.

There are people out there who would love to speculate on these things. The problem is, the providers don't understand their needs, and the speculators don't understand the providers needs. The intense regulatory scrutiny (which is quite proper given the mayhem these rockets could cause) is a huge uncertainty for both. It would be nice if regulators, as they did during the Reagan administration, took steps to address these concerns. However, regulatory oversight is more often than not used by certain out of control elements of our military, to maintain a level of control that is hurting our nation's ability to maintain leadership in space. That's too damn bad. However, it does create an opportunity for those who take the time and effort to penetrate through the regulatory haze and construct reasonable contracts and business relationships.

The big opportunities over the next five years, beyond global wireless broadband are;

return to the moon in 2019
power satellites
high value asteroid mining

over the next ten years,

lunar colonization
mars colonization
moderate value asteroid mining



You got a job Jeff? Just wondering. You act like a guy that's never had a
job. At least not one in the aerospace business.







Jeff's made his credentials quite clear here before.


Sorry, I didn't take notes. He's crowing so loudly about his abilities I thought maybe he needed a job. I was going to advise, if you want to keep a job, you've got to get along with others. Jeff seems to have a problem with that.



--

Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/

CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net