The Non-Innovator's Dilemma

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 15:44:25 CST, in a place far, far away, "Dholmes"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

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.

Nope. I addressed that in the column. You can't compare sunk costs
to avoidable ones, at least if you're trying to make a rational
economic decision.

When comparing 2 proposals you should always compare them equally when
possible.
To not do so is bad economics. By not treating them the same you set up a
strawman arguement.

I don't think you know what a strawman argument is.

Look. You have an old car that's already paid for. You're thinking
about buying another one. Keeping the old one has costs of upkeep and
maintenance. Buying a new one has the cost of purchasing it. The
only cost basis on which you're going to make the decision as to
whether or not to buy the new one is how much it will sot you int the
*future*--whether or not the payments of the new car are worth it,
relative to continuing to repair and maintain the old one. You will
not, unless you're insane, consider the payments that you already paid
on the old one, because those are already paid, and you don't have any
control over them.

The basic flaw in your argument is the first car was a gift from the
American people to NASA and they are willing to give NASA a second one.
They want their relatives out of the 30 year old dilapidated Pinto with
failing brakes that almost never runs and into a car that has a warranty and
a air bag.
You also fail to account for the fact that the Pinto has been proven
dangerous and in the shop for extended periods of time both of which are
very large costs.




4) If you are using 3 OSP flights to replace a shuttle flight and you
replace at least 4 shuttle flights a year that totals 12 not 4 or 8.
If
you
replace 6 shuttle flights then you have 18 flights.

How do you figure? You can't count the cargo flights.

If you are carrying it up by OSP or OSP with an attached cargo capsule
then
of course you count it.

Even if it does not go up by OSP but replaces a shuttle flight it reduces
overall costs it could be argued to count it but this is more debatable.
Divide 1000 by 4 then divide 1000 by 20 the figures are radically
different.

But you wouldn't divide it by twenty, unless there are going to be
twenty OSP flights. You will only fly OSP on those flights that
require crew, and those are much fewer than cargo flights.

Wrong the majority of OSP flights will probably be unmanned.
If you want to take it up and bring it back it must go up on the OSP, Suyoz
or the shuttle.


Again it comes back to using the same figures for both.

No, it comes back to using what makes accounting sense.

Using real numbers always make accounting sense.


5) If they use the capsule version they will be reasonably cheap.

That remains to be seen.

If it is not then they have messed up big time and they should just copy
the
Russians or the Chinese.

They've messed up big time repeatedly in the past. If by "messing up
big time" means spending many billions of dollars on the OSP, they've
already indicated that that's exactly what they're going to do.

Always a possibility.


There is
no reason a private company with its own rocket could not buy an OSP.

No, but there are many reasons that it wouldn't--the high costs.

The Russian, American and Chinese experience with capsules say this is
not
the case.

Really? How many private companies have bought Russian, American and
Chinese capsules?

Last time I checked there are several in museums and what not.
Topped off with a couple of seats on actual flights.
It is not the capsules that cost a lot it is the launches!
If someone can lower the cost to orbit enough they can launch them cheap.
Unfortunatly no one has such a cheap rocket today.


That was exactly the point of the column.

Then you should be proposing ways for NASA to buy rockets from private
companies to increase those volumes

That's a different column. I publish columns, not books.

Increasing volume is IMO pretty close to the central issue.

not encourage fewer such purchases.

In what way did I do that?

If NASA sticks with the Shuttle till it fails again that is exactly what
will happen.

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

"Dholmes" wrote in message
...

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


You always use the same standards when comparing two proposals.
I am only trying to count each once not one 0 times and the other 3
times
by
adding in interest.

But you're not comparing the same thing in both cases. The sunk costs for
the shuttle are spent. There's nothing in the budget to account for
"Original R&D" in future shuttle ops. There is such a thing as "Original
R&D" for the OSP.

Unlike private industry, NASA doesn't have to amortize costs after the
fact.

Except the American people have said they will give NASA that if it makes
flights safer.

Now, if you want to include FUTURE R&D costs for the Shuttle (safety
upgrades, etc) that's entirely appropriate.

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 18:15:52 CST, in a place far, far away, "Dholmes"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

Unlike private industry, NASA doesn't have to amortize costs after the
fact.

Except the American people have said they will give NASA that if it makes
flights safer.

Which is utterly beside the point. Anyway, I haven't heard the
"American people" say anything about space.

--
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, 21 Sep 2003 18:15:49 CST, in a place far, far away, "Dholmes"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

When comparing 2 proposals you should always compare them equally when
possible.
To not do so is bad economics. By not treating them the same you set up a
strawman arguement.

I don't think you know what a strawman argument is.

Look. You have an old car that's already paid for. You're thinking
about buying another one. Keeping the old one has costs of upkeep and
maintenance. Buying a new one has the cost of purchasing it. The
only cost basis on which you're going to make the decision as to
whether or not to buy the new one is how much it will sot you int the
*future*--whether or not the payments of the new car are worth it,
relative to continuing to repair and maintain the old one. You will
not, unless you're insane, consider the payments that you already paid
on the old one, because those are already paid, and you don't have any
control over them.

The basic flaw in your argument is the first car was a gift from the
American people to NASA and they are willing to give NASA a second one.
They want their relatives out of the 30 year old dilapidated Pinto with
failing brakes that almost never runs and into a car that has a warranty and
a air bag.
You also fail to account for the fact that the Pinto has been proven
dangerous and in the shop for extended periods of time both of which are
very large costs.

No, this argument has absolutely nothing to do with any of those
things. Sunk costs are sunk, and they are *not considered* in making
decisions about future expenditures.

But you wouldn't divide it by twenty, unless there are going to be
twenty OSP flights. You will only fly OSP on those flights that
require crew, and those are much fewer than cargo flights.

Wrong the majority of OSP flights will probably be unmanned.

Really? According to whom?

Again it comes back to using the same figures for both.

No, it comes back to using what makes accounting sense.

Using real numbers always make accounting sense.

I am using real numbers.

Really? How many private companies have bought Russian, American and
Chinese capsules?

Last time I checked there are several in museums and what not.

Did they pay list price for them?

Topped off with a couple of seats on actual flights.

Purchasing subsidized seats is not the same things as purchasing
capsules.

It is not the capsules that cost a lot it is the launches!
If someone can lower the cost to orbit enough they can launch them cheap.

If someone lowers the cost to orbit, it will be by not using things
like OSP.

Then you should be proposing ways for NASA to buy rockets from private
companies to increase those volumes

That's a different column. I publish columns, not books.

Increasing volume is IMO pretty close to the central issue.

Yes, it is, *but it wasn't the topic of the column*.

not encourage fewer such purchases.

In what way did I do that?

If NASA sticks with the Shuttle till it fails again that is exactly what
will happen.

??

--
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:

"Jon Berndt" wrote in message
...
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in

And for those you do know, I'm sure you'll find quite a few that don't
support this and don't believe it makes sense.

Count me in that crowd.

What's your preferred approach?

Not entirely sure. But let's just say, I don't see OSP as superior to the
shuttle in just about any way.



Jon

"Dholmes" wrote in message
...

Except the American people have said they will give NASA that if it makes
flights safer.

Umm, 'the American people" haven't said this. In fact I'll bet if you ask
the average man on the street if he knew what the OSP was you'd get a blank
stare.

And for those you do know, I'm sure you'll find quite a few that don't
support this and don't believe it makes sense.

Count me in that crowd.

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in

And for those you do know, I'm sure you'll find quite a few that don't
support this and don't believe it makes sense.

Count me in that crowd.

What's your preferred approach?

Jon

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 18:15:49 CST, in a place far, far away, "Dholmes"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:
The basic flaw in your argument is the first car was a gift from the
American people to NASA and they are willing to give NASA a second one.
They want their relatives out of the 30 year old dilapidated Pinto with
failing brakes that almost never runs and into a car that has a warranty
and
a air bag.
You also fail to account for the fact that the Pinto has been proven
dangerous and in the shop for extended periods of time both of which are
very large costs.

No, this argument has absolutely nothing to do with any of those
things. Sunk costs are sunk, and they are *not considered* in making
decisions about future expenditures.

Rand, is it really worthwhile to explain the prerequisites to
Economics-051-Remedial on a regular basis? I wouldn't think
this to be a good investment of your time resources.
--
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, 21 Sep 2003 20:06:57 CST, in a place far, far away, "johnhare"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 18:15:49 CST, in a place far, far away, "Dholmes"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:
The basic flaw in your argument is the first car was a gift from the
American people to NASA and they are willing to give NASA a second one.
They want their relatives out of the 30 year old dilapidated Pinto with
failing brakes that almost never runs and into a car that has a warranty
and
a air bag.
You also fail to account for the fact that the Pinto has been proven
dangerous and in the shop for extended periods of time both of which are
very large costs.

No, this argument has absolutely nothing to do with any of those
things. Sunk costs are sunk, and they are *not considered* in making
decisions about future expenditures.

Rand, is it really worthwhile to explain the prerequisites to
Economics-051-Remedial on a regular basis? I wouldn't think
this to be a good investment of your time resources.

Yes, it's not. I'm just hanging in, hoping that someone else will do
it, lest others equally non-conversant with basic accounting will
imagine that this guy is making sense.

--
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 Sun, 21 Sep 2003 20:06:57 CST, in a place far, far away, "johnhare"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

Rand, is it really worthwhile to explain the prerequisites to
Economics-051-Remedial on a regular basis? I wouldn't think
this to be a good investment of your time resources.

Yes, it's not. I'm just hanging in, hoping that someone else will do
it, lest others equally non-conversant with basic accounting will
imagine that this guy is making sense.

I would offer moral support, except that the real meaning of that
is, "you're on your own buddy".* I check this group for content every
once in a while to see what I'm missing. While somebody needs to
do reality checks on the clueless, I don't have the time or desire for
it. I did think the Kalfus 'sex dummy to Mars' subthread was funny,
in a sad sort of way.
--
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:


* I irritated a friend in an email once by saying this, don't take offense
please.