A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Will the investment flood happen?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 5th 03, 02:37 PM
M. Scott
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Will the investment flood happen?

As you probably know, in the aftermath of Charles Lindbergh's
trans-Atlantic flight, interest in aviation skyrocketed. According to
the X-Prize website, "The Spirit of St. Louis aircraft was personally
viewed by a quarter of all Americans within a year of Lindbergh's 1927
flight. The number of US Airline Passengers flown went from 5,782 in
1926 to 173,405 in 1929. Companies were known to change their names to
include the words "airplane" or "aviation" in their corporate names much
like the rush to establish the early dot.coms."

In an interview with Clark Lindsey of HobbySpace, Dr. Diamandis (of the
X-Prize) said, "Once the X PRIZE is won, I hope that there will be a
major flow of cash from the investment community into private
space-related ventures."

Do you all think this is likely to happen? Or do you think most
investors will wait until the X-Prize competitors actually start turning
profits?
--
Direct access to this group with http://web2news.com
http://web2news.com/?sci.space.policy
  #2  
Old July 5th 03, 06:17 PM
John Ordover
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Will the investment flood happen?

Do you all think this is likely to happen? Or do you think most
investors will wait until the X-Prize competitors actually start turning
profits?


It won't happen either time, unless a clear, obvious, irrefutable
profit potential can be shown.
  #3  
Old July 5th 03, 06:18 PM
John Ordover
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Will the investment flood happen?

Do you all think this is likely to happen? Or do you think most
investors will wait until the X-Prize competitors actually start turning
profits?


Sorry, hit send too soon. How many investors did the fly-by-peddle Condor get?
  #4  
Old July 8th 03, 03:39 AM
Allen Meece
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Will the investment flood happen?

Or do you think most
investors will wait until the X-Prize competitors actually start turning
profits?

Investors won't be watching for profits, too many variables go into the
profit equation.
They'll be watching for proof of suborb systems reliability. Then they can
apply their own expertise toward the profit scenario. FEDEX would love a suborb
package deliverer, something quite different from suborb tourism.
All it'll take is a reliable system and then the suborb investment dam will
break.
^
//^\\
~~~ near space elevator ~~~~
~~~members.aol.com/beanstalkr/~~~
  #5  
Old July 8th 03, 07:45 PM
John Ordover
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Will the investment flood happen?

FEDEX would love a suborb
package deliverer,



I've heard this said over and over, but it's not true.

The time it takes to go from one airport to another is the least part
of the time it takes Fedex to deliver a package. You could reduce the
travel time from CA to NYC to zero and not make a significant impact
on the delivery time, which is depending on pick up, sorting, delivery
to the airport, sorting at the destination and then physical delivery.
That's even more true in places like Moscow, where on-the-ground
delivery is more complicated.

So you can forget Fed-Ex paying a lot of money to ship things
suborbitally.
  #6  
Old July 9th 03, 01:08 AM
Henry Spencer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Will the investment flood happen?

In article ,
John Ordover wrote:
FEDEX would love a suborb package deliverer,


I've heard this said over and over, but it's not true.


Actually, it is... partly.

It is not necessary to speculate about these things; people have actually
talked to companies like FedEx about it. They *are* interested, but with
certain reservations.

The time it takes to go from one airport to another is the least part
of the time it takes Fedex to deliver a package.


FedEx and similar companies have made considerable efforts to minimize the
ground overhead, with some success. That said, it remains significant,
and suborbital package delivery would be interesting mostly for the real
long-haul runs, mostly intercontinental. The advantage there is more than
just the travel time, incidentally, because the short transit times can
avoid timezone problems (e.g. airport-operations curfews) which constrain
current subsonic-aircraft operations.

For the intercontinental runs, suborbital flight does gain enough time to
be really interesting. BUT...

+ Vehicle costs have to be low enough to afford a substantial fleet. You
cannot build a package-delivery service on one or two vehicles.

+ They pretty much have to be cleared to operate out of major airports,
and in several countries too, with airliner-class paperwork.

+ Their dispatch reliability -- readiness to fly when scheduled to --
must approach 100%. (Spare vehicles and rapid cargo handling can
cope with some shortfall -- subsonic-aircraft dispatch reliability is
usually below 99% -- but there are practical limits.)

+ They must be capable of flying through any weather except the rarest
and most severe adverse conditions.

+ The vehicle/cargo loss rate must approach 0% very closely.

(The last three are tied to a fundamental constraint of fast package
delivery: the probability of getting a package there *when promised* has
to be something like 99.999% for the business to be viable.)

The chances that these constraints can be satisfied by a first-generation
reusable rocket are nearly zero. A second-generation system... perhaps.
--
MOST launched 1015 EDT 30 June, separated 1046, | Henry Spencer
first ground-station pass 1651, all nominal! |
  #8  
Old July 10th 03, 03:08 AM
Mary Shafer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Will the investment flood happen?

On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 00:08:14 GMT, (Henry Spencer)
wrote:

In article ,
John Ordover wrote:


The time it takes to go from one airport to another is the least part
of the time it takes Fedex to deliver a package.


FedEx and similar companies have made considerable efforts to minimize the
ground overhead, with some success. That said, it remains significant,
and suborbital package delivery would be interesting mostly for the real
long-haul runs, mostly intercontinental. The advantage there is more than
just the travel time, incidentally, because the short transit times can
avoid timezone problems (e.g. airport-operations curfews) which constrain
current subsonic-aircraft operations.


Having anxiously tracked many FedEx packages, I have to say that
getting the package down the gravel roads in Northeast Iowa in winter
or through Customs any time swamps the time on the airplane.
Particularly the latter.

For the intercontinental runs, suborbital flight does gain enough time to
be really interesting. BUT...

+ Vehicle costs have to be low enough to afford a substantial fleet. You
cannot build a package-delivery service on one or two vehicles.


You will have to have a substantial fleet of ground vehicles, too, and
an efficient ground operation.

+ They pretty much have to be cleared to operate out of major airports,
and in several countries too, with airliner-class paperwork.


Not just out of major airports, but also _into_.

+ Their dispatch reliability -- readiness to fly when scheduled to --
must approach 100%. (Spare vehicles and rapid cargo handling can
cope with some shortfall -- subsonic-aircraft dispatch reliability is
usually below 99% -- but there are practical limits.)


It's not just dispatch reliability but post-takeoff, pre-landing
reliability. It's rare that a FedEx or UPS airplane or truck has an
accident in transit, and if it happened often customers wouldn't use
their services. It doesn't take many "Destroyed in transit" notices
before folks stop shipping irreplaceable objects.

+ They must be capable of flying through any weather except the rarest
and most severe adverse conditions.


It might be easier to do this than it is with aircraft, because it
won't be necessary to forecast the weather at the destination so far
ahead, as is the case for slower aircraft.

+ The vehicle/cargo loss rate must approach 0% very closely.


Both in the air and on the ground. This means safety, security, and
reliability.

(The last three are tied to a fundamental constraint of fast package
delivery: the probability of getting a package there *when promised* has
to be something like 99.999% for the business to be viable.)


Part of the promise is that the package must get there when promised
in good condition. Getting a few scorched shreds there doesn't count.

The chances that these constraints can be satisfied by a first-generation
reusable rocket are nearly zero. A second-generation system... perhaps.


I agree, entirely. However, reusability probably isn't the primary
issue in success or failure.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer

"Turn to kill, not to engage." LCDR Willie Driscoll, USN
  #9  
Old July 10th 03, 04:15 AM
Henry Spencer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Will the investment flood happen?

In article ,
Mary Shafer wrote:
+ Vehicle costs have to be low enough to afford a substantial fleet. You
cannot build a package-delivery service on one or two vehicles.


You will have to have a substantial fleet of ground vehicles, too, and
an efficient ground operation.


The assumption is that it's an established package-delivery operator --
e.g., FedEx -- buying these things, not a new startup. That makes all
kinds of sense in many ways.

+ They must be capable of flying through any weather except the rarest
and most severe adverse conditions.


It might be easier to do this than it is with aircraft, because it
won't be necessary to forecast the weather at the destination so far
ahead, as is the case for slower aircraft.


True, you can just hold the takeoff half an hour to wait for that
thunderstorm to leave the airport at the other end. On the other hand, if
if it's pouring down rain and shows no signs of stopping -- bearing in
mind that in Northern Europe, one major terminus for intercontinental
runs, this is far from rare :-) -- you have to be able to fly through it.

+ The vehicle/cargo loss rate must approach 0% very closely.


Both in the air and on the ground. This means safety, security, and
reliability.


Right. Again, though, if it's an established operator buying the
vehicles, he's already got the ground end of things. What he must have is
a vehicle that, once launched, essentially always gets itself and its
cargo to its destination on time in one piece.

(The last three are tied to a fundamental constraint of fast package
delivery: the probability of getting a package there *when promised* has
to be something like 99.999% for the business to be viable.)


Part of the promise is that the package must get there when promised
in good condition.


True, but I considered that part of getting it there. The key thing to
note here is that not only the survival but the schedule is critical: a
substantial fraction of the things people ship by fast-package service are
things that *must* get there on schedule, on pain of dire consequences.
This will be especially true of a premium-priced extra-fast service. Such
a service cannot tolerate any significant number of non-trivial delays.

The chances that these constraints can be satisfied by a first-generation
reusable rocket are nearly zero. A second-generation system... perhaps.


I agree, entirely. However, reusability probably isn't the primary
issue in success or failure.


The chances that the reliability requirements can be met by an expendable
seem to me to be essentially zero. Thorough testability, and thus full
reusability, are simply part of the ground rules to have any hope of
qualifying a vehicle for this job. But the issues certainly go far beyond
merely being able to label the thing "reusable".
--
MOST launched 1015 EDT 30 June, separated 1046, | Henry Spencer
first ground-station pass 1651, all nominal! |
  #10  
Old July 10th 03, 04:26 AM
Paul F. Dietz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Will the investment flood happen?

Mary Shafer wrote:

It's not just dispatch reliability but post-takeoff, pre-landing
reliability. It's rare that a FedEx or UPS airplane or truck has an
accident in transit, and if it happened often customers wouldn't use
their services. It doesn't take many "Destroyed in transit" notices
before folks stop shipping irreplaceable objects.


I received an item by FedEx once that was destroyed in transit.
It was replaceable, though -- a computer from HP. It arrived
in an anonymous brown cardboard box (clearly not the original),
with the shipping sticker on a separate square of cardboard that
was taped onto the box. The computer itself had a major dent --
the back of the case was bashed in, with the steel bottom pushed
forward about an inch. Fragments of electronics rattled around
inside. Something had clearly clobbered it at the bottom of
a conveyor ramp somewhere in the bowels of FedEx.

Needless to say they shipped me another one without question.
Why they thought they should deliver the first carcass to me
I don't understand.

Paul

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
ISS an accident waiting to happen ? David Linney Space Station 9 October 1st 03 09:51 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.