CEV to be made commercially available

Jim Davis ) wrote:
: wrote:

: And the B-47 was used by no one but the USAF. Yet it led the
: way to successful commercial jet travel.

: And the Saturn V was used by no one except NASA and it
: led...nowhere.

I thought it led us to the moon? Never figured you one for the lunar hoax
myth...

Eric

: So will the SDHLV be more like the B-47 or more like the Saturn V?
: What do you think, Scott?

: Jim Davis

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
"Jeff Findley" wrote:
:"Scott Lowther" wrote in message
...
:Because I used to think like you, up until I started getting my
:aerospace engineering degree and started looking at why launch costs are
so
:high.

And just why is that, other than that there's been no real commercial
driver to get them down?

:Sending a few NASA astronauts to the moon won't make us any more of a
:spacefaring nation than Apollo did, so what's the point of Apollo 2.0?

Well, as you pointed out, right now most of the American people could
give a fig about space. Not sending people isn't the way to get or
keep their interest. When we were going someplace (before NASA got
boring) a lot more people were interested.

Interest in Apollo dropped rapidly after the successful return of Apollo 11.
The same drop in interest also happened for shuttle, shuttle/Mir, and
shuttle/ISS. What's to stop that same drop for Apollo 2.0? What will be
fundamentally different so that interest will be retained for longer than
the first few flights?

There's your point. Or do you think we'll somehow become "more of a
spacefaring nation" by killing human access to space outright?

Human access to space does not necessarily equal NASA human access to space.
I'd like to see NASA start pulling back from taking control of all aspects
of human access to space and see them start to utilize commercial resources.
Unfortunately, Apollo 2.0 does none of that. There is some lip service
being paid to commercial resupply of ISS, but the entire foundation of
Apollo 2.0 is NASA, right down to the launch vehicles and launch facilities.

I'm not against NASA returning to the moon, but I am against the current
plan which lets NASA retain control of everything. Specifically, launch
services can be purchased from US providers.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

Jim Davis wrote:
wrote:

And the B-47 was used by no one but the USAF. Yet it led the
way to successful commercial jet travel.

And the Saturn V was used by no one except NASA and it
led...nowhere.

It was killed before it even flew. Imagine if Boeing had undertaken the
777 program, built a dozen prototypes... but then, due to the board of
directors being drunk one day, officially terminated the project before
the first one flew.

"See? Boeing wasted billions. The whole idea of a large two-engine long
range passenger plane is thus a bad one that we should never try
again."


So will the SDHLV be more like the B-47 or more like the Saturn V?
What do you think, Scott?

Difficult to see is the future. A notable difference here is that both
the B-47 and the Saturn V were bleeding-edge technology... HLLV won't
be.

snidely wrote:

No, no, Scott -- this is the core of what you have wrong. The public
doesn't care a fig about HERO-ASTRONAUTS unless there is a hint of
blood and gore (a bit like NASCAR). What VG, XCOR, Bigelow are selling
is PERSONAL SPACE TRAVEL, and quite a few more people are interested in
that.


Here's your problem: the public tends to identify more with astronauts
than bajillionaires. 99.99999% of the public will not only never go to
space, they'll never have the *option* of going to space. So while Joe
Billionaire spends his five million for a week on the LEO Hilton, Joe
Hero goes to the moon and represents The Best Of America.

"Personal space travel" is decades away. "Rich guy space travel" is,
hopefully, just a few years away. It will capture the public for a
while, and then it will fade. Hopefully, the rich will keep flying and
paying so that it will actually become affordable for schmoes like the
most of us, but it'll be a while.

Jeff Findley wrote:

Interest in Apollo dropped rapidly after the successful return of Apollo 11.
The same drop in interest also happened for shuttle, shuttle/Mir, and
shuttle/ISS.


And while Apollo ended in a hurry... Shuttle lasted a quarter century.
ISS has lasted years and chewed up an astonishing amount of cash.


What's to stop that same drop for Apollo 2.0? What will be
fundamentally different so that interest will be retained for longer than
the first few flights?


What makes you think incessant public interest is vital here?


Human access to space does not necessarily equal NASA human access to space.

Right. There are the Chinese, the Russians, the... ummm....

" wrote in
message oups.com...

Jeff Findley wrote:

If you look back at Apollo, public interest was dropping like a stone
once
Apollo 11 made it home safely. Only the chance of astronauts dying in
space
made the public wake up during Apollo 13. The same thing will happen
with
Apollo 2.0. After a couple of missions, the public will quickly lose
interest.

Then you should get on the phone *right* *now* to Virgin Galactic,
XCOR, Bigelow, etc. and tell them that the public won't be interested
in spaceflight.

There is a huge difference between flying and watching someone fly on the
TV. The market for tickets will certainly be small, but the startups are
betting they can make a profit on that market.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

" wrote in
message ups.com...

snidely wrote:

No, no, Scott -- this is the core of what you have wrong. The public
doesn't care a fig about HERO-ASTRONAUTS unless there is a hint of
blood and gore (a bit like NASCAR). What VG, XCOR, Bigelow are selling
is PERSONAL SPACE TRAVEL, and quite a few more people are interested in
that.


Here's your problem: the public tends to identify more with astronauts
than bajillionaires. 99.99999% of the public will not only never go to
space, they'll never have the *option* of going to space. So while Joe
Billionaire spends his five million for a week on the LEO Hilton, Joe
Hero goes to the moon and represents The Best Of America.

Yet TV shows like The Osbornes, Survivor, Big Brother, The Bachelor, and
etc. get good ratings. When there is finally a LEO Hilton, how many reality
shows will set up shop in LEO? How many people who are bored watching an
astronaut perform an EVA would actually be interested in seeing a couple of
reality show contestants making out in zero gravity? Not to mention zero
gravity porn...

"Personal space travel" is decades away. "Rich guy space travel" is,
hopefully, just a few years away. It will capture the public for a
while, and then it will fade. Hopefully, the rich will keep flying and
paying so that it will actually become affordable for schmoes like the
most of us, but it'll be a while.

Yet some successful TV shows are little more than TV cameras following rich
people around. What makes these shows interesting isn't necessarily the
setting, but the way people interact. Zero gravity will put a bit of a
twist on how these sorts of people interact, and I'll bet someone with a
camera will be waiting to make a buck off filming non-astronauts in LEO.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

Jeff Findley wrote:

There is a huge difference between flying and watching someone fly on the
TV.

Yes, but what difference will that make for the voting public? Except
for some lotto winners, none will get to go for a decade or three. And
I'm not sure how willing the millionaires will be to have a camera in
their face while they're trying to do the Zero-G-Bop with the trophy
wife...


The market for tickets will certainly be small,

Incredibly small. Let's say ten years from now, 1,000 Americans per
year are going to orbit. That's what, 0.0003% of the public?

but the startups are betting they can make a profit on that market.

And I bet they can, which is why I'm betting my money with them. But to
assume that that profitable yet tiny market will equate to vast and
long-term interest in the public... seems unfounded.

" wrote in
message oups.com...

Jeff Findley wrote:

Agreed. So, do you think that the startups could use the help of NASA
in
much the same way as the early aviation industry used the help of NACA?

Actually, no. The early aviators benefitting from NACA were gainign the
benefit of great improvements in engine and aerodynamic efficiency. But
rocket engiens are *already* effectively at the peak of their
efficiency. What's need now is not an improvement in performance -
which comes from giant research programs - but improvements in cost,
reliability and maintainability... which comes from *experience.*

Partly, but lower cost also comes when you design for lower cost up front.
NASA could do a lot towards researching lower cost engines.

It's not too early for NASA to get out of the launch vehicle
business.

When they can buy a flight that matches their needs (read: heavy
lifter
applicable for moon missions), I'll agree.

That's not a need, that's a desire.

No, it's a need. As in "mandated by Congress/President."

Really? I wasn't aware that the Congress/President specified that NASA
launch missions to the moon with as few launch vehicles as possible.

If you go back far enough, LOR wasn't the only option being
considered. It was seen as the fastest way to get to the moon, but EOR
might have been a more sustainable approach in the long term.

No good reason to assume that. EOR would have cost as much or more to
develop than LOR, and would have potentially cost more to operate.

Or EOR could have cost more time and money to develop, but less to operate
due to economies of scale.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

Jeff Findley wrote:

Yet TV shows like The Osbornes, Survivor, Big Brother, The Bachelor, and
etc. get good ratings.

Are any of these shows still on???

When there is finally a LEO Hilton, how many reality
shows will set up shop in LEO?

Dunno. Probably at least one, for a season or three.

How many people who are bored watching an
astronaut perform an EVA would actually be interested in seeing a couple of
reality show contestants making out in zero gravity? Not to mention zero
gravity porn...

While all true, none of this has anything to do with cancellation of
ESAS. How many people were glued to their sets during the last flight
of Columbia? And yet, Shuttle had been flying and boring the public for
two decades by that point.

Yet some successful TV shows are little more than TV cameras following rich
people around.

Yes, like Richard Branson's "The Rebel Billionaire." What time is that
on, again?

Shows like this come in spurts. A few years ago, "Real World" style
reality shows about vapid morons with pathetic personal issues were all
the rage. Then Regis Philbin's "Millionaire" show was on every fifteen
minutes until the public got bored overnight. Next year it could be
"Weathermen Gone Wild" on every network. Who knows?

What makes these shows interesting isn't necessarily the
setting, but the way people interact. Zero gravity will put a bit of a
twist on how these sorts of people interact, and I'll bet someone with a
camera will be waiting to make a buck off filming non-astronauts in LEO.

Yes, for a few seasons at most (probably). How does that equate to
long-term?