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

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.

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?

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/~~~

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.

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! |

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

Henry Spencer wrote:
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.

I'm skeptical that it would be allowed. The US federal government
doesn't like planes within a half hour's flying time of DC. For
something going close to orbital speed, a half hour encompasses all
of the US, Canada, and Europe.
--
Keith F. Lynch - - http://keithlynch.net/
I always welcome replies to my e-mail, postings, and web pages, but
unsolicited bulk e-mail (spam) is not acceptable. Please do not send me
HTML, "rich text," or attachments, as all such email is discarded unread.

(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. 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.

This is all getting very iffy, but what would the market pay for
basically instantaneous package delivery? Say you could fax/matter-
transmit/e-mail the sort of boxes Fedex hauls by airplane, with
few-second delays between hitting the "send" button and the box
appearing at the addressee's door or on the loading dock.

What premium would various customers pay for that service over
sending it by fast-as-possible current-day Fedex? Organ transplants
come to mind as a possibility for which large premiums would be paid.
Others?

Presumably the added value of sub-orbital delivery, other stuff aside,
would fall between the airplane and the instantaneous cases.

(John Ordover) wrote in message om...
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.

You've lost me here! I know about same day delivery within the UK, but
according to your theory we should have same day delivery from the UK
to California and Australia. Can you tell me who does same day
delivery from the UK to California?