CEV to be made commercially available

Tom Cuddihy wrote:

category as all these other failed technologies. Maybe, as Peter
wrote, it's time to 'let nature take its course'.

You mean and let humans go extinct, like all the other dumb species
that have stayed on the planet?

Except for the up to 100 million species that aren't extinct. I guess
those don't count.

But, gosh, you're right. Species last on the average of 10 million
years, IIRC, so there's not a moment to lose!

At least you didn't bring up the 'the sun is going to burn out
one day!' idiocy.

Paul

wrote:

And turbojet engines, and computers, and lasers, and communication
satellites, and launch systems, and jet airliners, and helicopters, and
the Internet and a whole mess of other technologies that were developed
partly or largely via Fedfunding and went on to be commercial
successes.

But, for each of those, there came a day when they succeeded
in the marketplace (except maybe launch systems, which remain
intertwined with government, and not coincidentally are in
global oversupply.)

There are also plenty of technologies that government pushed
that *didn't* succeed in the marketplace, and have died. Did
you know the US pushed silk production in the US in the 1930?
Ever heard of MHD power generation from coal? Stirling engines
for cars? Nuclear cargo ships?

Just because one doesn't like the judgment of the market doesn't
mean that judgment is wrong.

And sometimes the market needs to be kick-started.

We've done that. For 40+ years.


Maybe manned space travel is in the same category as all these other failed technologies.

And maybe it's the jetliner of tomorrow.

From the first turbojet engine to the first commercial jet was,
what, less than two decades? We've already gone more than twice
that long in the 'space age' with no commercially viable manned
orbital industry in sight (I don't count tourists deadheading on
russian launchers.)

Paul

"Pete Lynn" wrote:

:"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
.. .
: "Pete Lynn" wrote:
:
: Personally I would go further and expect a
: competitive long term ROI to society for any given
: manned space activity.
:
: So would I. Mr Dietz, however, wants to deny the
: net ROI to society of spurring interest in engineering
: and the sciences, which will lead to improvements in
: vehicles and perhaps 'eventually' actually get us
: reasonably priced long-term access to space.
:
:I would deny the above position in the context of ESAS. I would not deny
:it for the start ups.

In other words, your position seems to boil down to "I hate NASA and
so should you".

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Paul F. Dietz wrote:
wrote:

And turbojet engines, and computers, and lasers, and communication
satellites, and launch systems, and jet airliners, and helicopters, and
the Internet and a whole mess of other technologies that were developed
partly or largely via Fedfunding and went on to be commercial
successes.

But, for each of those, there came a day when they succeeded
in the marketplace ...

Yes. And the day will come for commercial manned spaceflight. The fact
that it doesn't meet *your* schedule is irrelevant.

wrote:
uccesses.

But, for each of those, there came a day when they succeeded
in the marketplace ...


Yes. And the day will come for commercial manned spaceflight. The fact
that it doesn't meet *your* schedule is irrelevant.

No, there are very important differences. Each of those technologies
could be developed on a small scale, delivered clear short-term (less
than a decade) payoffs, and reached economic takeoff in a fairly short time.

Manned orbital spaceflight is very far from economic viability, cannot
be developed on a small scale, and doesn't appear to have any short-term
payoffs (no, I'm not optimistic on orbital space tourism.)

Paul

Paul F. Dietz wrote:
wrote:
uccesses.

But, for each of those, there came a day when they succeeded
in the marketplace ...


Yes. And the day will come for commercial manned spaceflight. The fact
that it doesn't meet *your* schedule is irrelevant.

No, there are very important differences. Each of those technologies
could be developed on a small scale, delivered clear short-term (less
than a decade) payoffs, and reached economic takeoff in a fairly short time.

Another important difference: a nuclear cargo ship is just an
improvement to a cargo ship. MHD power from coal is just another way to
get power out of coal. Jetliners are jsut faster airlines. Manned space
flight is a whole new universe, quite literally. So if it takes a
little longer... well, rational people can understand that.


Manned orbital spaceflight is very far from economic viability

So are babies.

wrote:

Another important difference: a nuclear cargo ship is just an
improvement to a cargo ship. MHD power from coal is just another way to
get power out of coal. Jetliners are jsut faster airlines. Manned space
flight is a whole new universe, quite literally. So if it takes a
little longer... well, rational people can understand that.

Ah, so in those other cases, a potential market was known to exist.

For manned space, it isn't. Yet another way it can fail.

Paul

Paul F. Dietz wrote:
wrote:

Another important difference: a nuclear cargo ship is just an
improvement to a cargo ship. MHD power from coal is just another way to
get power out of coal. Jetliners are jsut faster airlines. Manned space
flight is a whole new universe, quite literally. So if it takes a
little longer... well, rational people can understand that.

Ah, so in those other cases, a potential market was known to exist.

As is the case with manned spaceflight. Really, Paul, you must learn to
pay attention.

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
"Pete Lynn" wrote:

I would deny the above position in the context of
ESAS. I would not deny it for the start ups.

In other words, your position seems to boil down to
"I hate NASA and so should you".

I should have known better than to attempt rational discourse.

Pete.

"Paul F. Dietz" wrote in message
...
wrote:

No, there are very important differences. Each of
those technologies could be developed on a small
scale, delivered clear short-term (less than a decade)
payoffs, and reached economic takeoff in a fairly
short time.

I would contend that this is also true for CATS. The vast majority of
launch vehicles developed to date have been developed by governments and
their proxies. With few exceptions, not CATS focussed, not small scale
and not fast on payback.

Possible development costs for one person CATS vehicles are now getting
down toward the $100 million mark. And necessarily so, by the you can
not achieve CATS by spending lots of money doctrine.

Manned orbital spaceflight is very far from economic
viability, cannot be developed on a small scale, and
doesn't appear to have any short-term payoffs (no,
I'm not optimistic on orbital space tourism.)

I am now of the opinion that initial market development costs must be
factored into the CATS vehicle development program. Current markets lead
back to current launch vehicles, as SpaceX is to some extent
demonstrating.

For a genuine CATS vehicle, paying for fifty flights up front is a small
proportion of the development program costs. This should significantly
aid the development program and those first fifty flights might still
carry partially paying low cost payloads, building the market.

If the cost can get down to ~$100/kg, with sufficient reliability,
(hopefully established over the initial fifty flights), then orbital
tourism should take off. At $100/kg LEO real estate can be lower in cost
than that of many beach front properties, so this is not a big push -
though access and ongoing costs are a bit more. There are countries that
survive on tourism and I would see the orbital tourism market to be of
that order - not a small market.

Obviously there are other markets and other costs associated with
fulfilling them. We need tugs, hangers, kitset homes, power systems,
life support systems - the development and production of all sorts of
low cost equipment for which there are currently only high cost
versions - if that. This will require $100s of millions in a fairly up
front fashion. However, a number of significant investors have already
leapt on the start ups and I expect that if $100/kg was demonstrated,
many more would leap on space infrastructure. That so many
developers/investors with proven track records have leapt to the space
start ups is very telling. I very much doubt that so much talent for
being right will all be wrong.

I estimate that a $100 million invested appropriately could probably get
over the initial CATS hump. $500 million to do it properly at low risk -
to create a low cost launch industry with five plus competitors to
ensure an open launch market.

Pete.