The Non-Innovator's Dilemma

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 12:24:40 CST, in a place far, far away,
(Arthur Hansen) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

(Rand Simberg) wrote in message . ..
OSP isn't about making it incredibly cheap for anyone else, it's about
making it "less" expensive for NASA and the US and (now) much safer
than the Shuttle.

The problem is, as my column points out, it won't. At least not the
less expensive part. Whether it will be safer remains to be seen. I
have my doubts, but I also think that safety shouldn't trump
everything else, so that's another dumb reason to do OSP.

Actually, as you column infers, you don't think it would.

I think you mean implies.

You do bring
up some points about why it won't, but they may not be accurate.

If NASA (and the US Military) winnows themselves down to only two
launchers with different payloads, they may start to see some
cost-saving benefits of higher launch volumes. If it takes more
launches, it may do the same thing on top of it.

With the US Military buying Atlas and Delta launches and now NASA too,
they may be able to lower the cost by a decent margin, hence cheaper
launchs.

Even though the OSP may not have a much higher flight volume than
Shuttle, Delta and Atlas most likely will have quite a higher launch
count with satallite and payloads to ISS.

My column used a round number of a hundred million for Delta and Atlas
launches. No one knows how much a "man rated" (whatever that means in
this context) Delta and Atlas will cost (and I assume, but have no way
of knowing, that some of the projected development costs for OSP
includes the cost of making both those vehicles capable of delivering
it). But I've seen no indication that the flight rates on them, with
or without OSP, are going to significantly reduce their costs, because
they will still be far too low to get the necessary economies of
scale.

--
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:

"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote in message . ..
"Dholmes" wrote in message
...

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
That's the title of my latest column at Tech Central Station, in which
I discuss why the economics of OSP make no sense.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/091903E.html

I see several flaws with your argument.

1) By using development costs for the OSP vs. not including them for the
shuttle you compare apples on oranges making the cost comparison
worthless.

No. If we're back in 1972 making this decision, then including shuttle
development costs would be important.

However, at this point, that money has been spent. So it's already
accounted for. You want to count it twice.

It's moot, anyway. Splitting out the 'development costs' from OSP and
shuttle total program costs is rediculous. Shuttle is not like a new
airplane model that, once 'developed,' after a onetime 'development
cost,' can be used on a unit basis for hundreds of flights for tens of
years, each flight at an insignificant fraction of the total cost of
vehicle development. As has been pointed out repeatedly, it costs a
significant fraction of the original 'development cost' te allow
shuttle flights to occur at all. And as Will Mclean pointed out, it
costs even more each time shuttle is grounded and not operational,
money for which you get no flights.

In that environment, it makes a whole lot more sense to look at the
entire program cost without meaninglessly splitting out the
'development cost,' as if it is a one-time charge for product
development.

Tom Merkls

In sci.space.policy Rand Simberg wrote:
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 07:27:50 CST, in a place far, far away, Sander
Vesik made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

In sci.space.policy Rand Simberg wrote:
On 24 Sep 2003 08:15:01 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Tom Merkle) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

WHAT COULD NASA
ACTUALLY DO BETTER OR DIFFERENT THAT WOULD HELP PUBLIC SPACE TRAVEL?

It could be a better customer, with more ambition for manned
spaceflight than sending a few government employees a year. It could
stop wasting billions on dead-end projects.

And precicely whom would they be buying that service from? Unless you
can demonstrate that NASA would not make use of 3rd party cheap access
to space, this claim is without merrit.

I don't understand this comment.


For NASA to be a better customer - or customer at all - there would need
to be somebody offering that something for sale. As things stand, there
isn't really any entity NASA could by manned space access from.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

h (Rand Simberg) wrote in message . ..
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 07:27:50 CST, in a place far, far away, Sander
Vesik made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

In sci.space.policy Rand Simberg wrote:
On 24 Sep 2003 08:15:01 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Tom Merkle) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

WHAT COULD NASA
ACTUALLY DO BETTER OR DIFFERENT THAT WOULD HELP PUBLIC SPACE TRAVEL?

It could be a better customer, with more ambition for manned
spaceflight than sending a few government employees a year. It could
stop wasting billions on dead-end projects.

And precicely whom would they be buying that service from? Unless you
can demonstrate that NASA would not make use of 3rd party cheap access
to space, this claim is without merrit.

I don't understand this comment.

That's because you can't reduce the answer to a non-specific
free-market platitude.

Don't be obtuse. In the past you've suggested NASA help public space
travel by buying commercial launch services from unspecified companies
that would be 'incentivized' to lower the cost of space access. Fine,
but there currently is no commercial manned space provider, and unless
you can demonstrate the NASA would not make use of one if it did
exist, it's pointless to suggest otherwise.

Tom Merkle

On 25 Sep 2003 19:10:09 GMT, in a place far, far away, Sander Vesik
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

And precicely whom would they be buying that service from? Unless you
can demonstrate that NASA would not make use of 3rd party cheap access
to space, this claim is without merrit.

I don't understand this comment.


For NASA to be a better customer - or customer at all - there would need
to be somebody offering that something for sale. As things stand, there
isn't really any entity NASA could by manned space access from.

And as long as there's no customer for it, there never will be. NASA
could be a chicken to the egg, or the egg to the chicken, but right
now it's not even in the henhouse.

--
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:

(Len) wrote in message . com...
(Tom Merkle) wrote in message om...
h (Rand Simberg) wrote in message . ..
http://www.techcentralstation.com/091903E.html
cheaper (although it may be *more* expensive, as your article

...snip...

Rand, what planet are you from? What is the agency doing that
frustrates the "pent-up demand for public space travel?" (Cue dodging
that direct question with a vague response that inverts the issue, to
something along the lines of 'not encouraging the private sector...
enough...')Let me preemptively ask you a follow-up: WHAT COULD NASA
ACTUALLY DO BETTER OR DIFFERENT THAT WOULD HELP PUBLIC SPACE TRAVEL?

Easy, get out of the space transportation business
that NACA would never have gotten into.

Best regards,
Len (Cormier)


Do your part, Len. Provide a working alternative, and NASA will beat a
path to your door.

Respectfully,

Tom Merkle

Hmmm....maybe Rutan has the right idea. He often does.

The way to give 20 people a two-orbit ride is to put a capsule or plane on a
really "large" solid rocket, lift it up to 60,000 feet on a carrier vehicle,
and fire it into an 85 mile orbit.

The solid rocket could be designed to accelerate the passenger vehicle to with a
few meters per second of orbital velocity, with the final boost accomplished via
a hypergolic engine similar to the OMS. The solid rocket could be recovered, or
left to fall into the ocean.

The cost of the solid rocket could be kept to a minimum by building it in the
private sector. (Determining the size and weight of the solid rocket motor is
an easy exercise for the knowledgeable practitioner. i.e. someone other than
myself.)

In sci.space.policy Rand Simberg wrote:
On 25 Sep 2003 19:10:09 GMT, in a place far, far away, Sander Vesik
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

And precicely whom would they be buying that service from? Unless you
can demonstrate that NASA would not make use of 3rd party cheap access
to space, this claim is without merrit.

I don't understand this comment.


For NASA to be a better customer - or customer at all - there would need
to be somebody offering that something for sale. As things stand, there
isn't really any entity NASA could by manned space access from.

And as long as there's no customer for it, there never will be. NASA
could be a chicken to the egg, or the egg to the chicken, but right
now it's not even in the henhouse.


Why should NASA bethe organisation that will act as a government subsidy
dispenser for some loser who cannot get his act and business plan together?
This will not give you any additional capability or reliability over present
and will incur additional costs, esp as the entity will essentialy be able
to raise its price arbitrarily and would not need to bother about any kind
of oversight.

And you are wrong anyways - you can buy manned space access now and the price
very probably reflects present demand.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 18:49:43 CST, in a place far, far away, Sander
Vesik made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

And as long as there's no customer for it, there never will be. NASA
could be a chicken to the egg, or the egg to the chicken, but right
now it's not even in the henhouse.


Why should NASA bethe organisation that will act as a government subsidy
dispenser for some loser who cannot get his act and business plan together?

Why should we assume that the problem is "some loser who cannot get
his act and business plan together"?

This will not give you any additional capability or reliability over present
and will incur additional costs, esp as the entity will essentialy be able
to raise its price arbitrarily and would not need to bother about any kind
of oversight.

Who said there would be a monopoly?

And you are wrong anyways - you can buy manned space access now and the price
very probably reflects present demand.

That's utter nonsense.

--
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:

h (Rand Simberg) wrote in message . ..


Why should NASA bethe organisation that will act as a government subsidy
dispenser for some loser who cannot get his act and business plan together?

Why should we assume that the problem is "some loser who cannot get
his act and business plan together"?

because there's no law against offering launch services to NASA--you
can do it tomorrow if you have the ability to carry it out.

This will not give you any additional capability or reliability over present
and will incur additional costs, esp as the entity will essentialy be able
to raise its price arbitrarily and would not need to bother about any kind
of oversight.

Who said there would be a monopoly?
the current market demand vs. current cost ensures it

And you are wrong anyways - you can buy manned space access now and the price
very probably reflects present demand.

That's utter nonsense.
Two private citizens have paid the cheapest price on the market for
manned access to space. How is this nonsense? It's called supply and
demand. If soyuz flights were more frequent, they would have paid
less.

Tom Merkle