Time to Think ‘Horizontal’ for Future Space Launches

On Dec 13, 8:04*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 2515e691-de72-450d-b305-6677c2f23806@
35g2000prt.googlegroups.com, says...



Jeff asks, where is the need for quick commercial launches.
Obviously, he doesn't understand the value of time to market. *This is
what killed Teledesic and Iridium. *By the time Motorola got their
Iridium satellites on orbit development of ground based systems made
them obsolete in most markets. *It was a practical demonstration of
the need for quick commercial launches.

You make it sound as if Teledesic and Iridium had built and tested all
their satellites and had them sitting in a warehouse somewhere waiting
for a launch opportunity.

Are you asserting that Teledesic and Iridium's time to market was
negatively impacted by their inability to purchase launches in a timely
manner? *If so, what evidence do you have to back up this assertion?

Satellites take quite a bit of time to design, build, and test before
launch. *You can't just pick one off the shelf of your local mega-mart
and launch it the next day. *As long as the lead time on a launcher is
less than the lead time for the satellite, the lead time for the launch
vehicle is completely and utterly irrelevant.

Jeff
--
42

Your typical excuses and delay justifications are noted.

How many spendy do-overs are we supposed to give you?

~ BG

In article 3d98eedd-c616-4100-8eb5-e633c6fb80e5
@k14g2000pre.googlegroups.com, says...

On Dec 13, 8:04*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 2515e691-de72-450d-b305-6677c2f23806@
35g2000prt.googlegroups.com, says...



Jeff asks, where is the need for quick commercial launches.
Obviously, he doesn't understand the value of time to market. *This is
what killed Teledesic and Iridium. *By the time Motorola got their
Iridium satellites on orbit development of ground based systems made
them obsolete in most markets. *It was a practical demonstration of
the need for quick commercial launches.

You make it sound as if Teledesic and Iridium had built and tested all
their satellites and had them sitting in a warehouse somewhere waiting
for a launch opportunity.

Are you asserting that Teledesic and Iridium's time to market was
negatively impacted by their inability to purchase launches in a timely
manner? *If so, what evidence do you have to back up this assertion?

Satellites take quite a bit of time to design, build, and test before
launch. *You can't just pick one off the shelf of your local mega-mart
and launch it the next day. *As long as the lead time on a launcher is
less than the lead time for the satellite, the lead time for the launch
vehicle is completely and utterly irrelevant.

Jeff
--
42

Your typical excuses and delay justifications are noted.

What excuse? Mook makes it sound like he thinks the lead time on launch
vehicles is what made Teledesic and Iridium fail. That's obviously an
oversimplistic argument and I was just wondering if he had any proof to
support that rather sweeping assertion.

How many spendy do-overs are we supposed to give you?

What?

Jeff
--
42

On Dec 13, 11:04*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 2515e691-de72-450d-b305-6677c2f23806@
35g2000prt.googlegroups.com, says...



Jeff asks, where is the need for quick commercial launches.
Obviously, he doesn't understand the value of time to market. *This is
what killed Teledesic and Iridium. *By the time Motorola got their
Iridium satellites on orbit development of ground based systems made
them obsolete in most markets. *It was a practical demonstration of
the need for quick commercial launches.

You make it sound as if Teledesic and Iridium had built and tested all
their satellites and had them sitting in a warehouse somewhere waiting
for a launch opportunity.

Their ability to build satellites far exceeded their ability to launch
them.


Are you asserting that Teledesic and Iridium's time to market was
negatively impacted by their inability to purchase launches in a timely
manner?

Yes.

*If so, what evidence do you have to back up this assertion?

Personal discussion with the principals involved.

Satellites take quite a bit of time to design, build, and test before
launch.

True.

*You can't just pick one off the shelf of your local mega-mart
and launch it the next day.

No one's saying that. Lead times for launchers are 7 years or more.
Lead times for satellites are 3 years or less. Hughes Aerospace tried
to shorten that by creating common core elements like the 601 frame,
etc.

This lead time lag along with the high costs involved reflects the
inefficiency of the aerospace supply chain and the way missile
technologies are controlled by the Department of Defense.

A five year acquisition and development program could streamline all
of this and radically transform our relationship to space. It would
also spell the end of the US Missile Control Paradigm.


*As long as the lead time on a launcher is
less than the lead time for the satellite, the lead time for the launch
vehicle is completely and utterly irrelevant.

True, but as I've said, the lead time for commercial satellites are 3
years or less. The lead time for ELVs are 7 years and more. Hughes
believing the BS put out about the Shuttle before the first shuttle
was launched bet heavily on building a satellite supply chain and lost
back in the 80s. I told Bob Forward and others at that time that only
an integrated supplier of truly reusable low cost launchers that also
supplied satellites in time frames of 18 months or so, would bring
about the sorts of advances in space communications and other off
world assets we see is common in industries like consumer electronics.


Jeff
--
42

On Dec 13, 5:43*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 3d98eedd-c616-4100-8eb5-e633c6fb80e5
@k14g2000pre.googlegroups.com, says...





On Dec 13, 8:04 am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 2515e691-de72-450d-b305-6677c2f23806@
35g2000prt.googlegroups.com, says...

Jeff asks, where is the need for quick commercial launches.
Obviously, he doesn't understand the value of time to market. This is
what killed Teledesic and Iridium. By the time Motorola got their
Iridium satellites on orbit development of ground based systems made
them obsolete in most markets. It was a practical demonstration of
the need for quick commercial launches.

You make it sound as if Teledesic and Iridium had built and tested all
their satellites and had them sitting in a warehouse somewhere waiting
for a launch opportunity.

Are you asserting that Teledesic and Iridium's time to market was
negatively impacted by their inability to purchase launches in a timely
manner? If so, what evidence do you have to back up this assertion?

Satellites take quite a bit of time to design, build, and test before
launch. You can't just pick one off the shelf of your local mega-mart
and launch it the next day. As long as the lead time on a launcher is
less than the lead time for the satellite, the lead time for the launch
vehicle is completely and utterly irrelevant.

Jeff
--
42

Your typical excuses and delay justifications are noted.

What excuse? *Mook makes it sound like he thinks the lead time on launch
vehicles is what made Teledesic and Iridium fail.

A 7 year lead time to bring an advanced consumer electronics product
to market - a market which radically transforms every 18 months - is a
guarantee of failure. Everyone at Motorola and Microsoft knows this -
now.

*That's obviously an
oversimplistic argument

Its an accurate argument based on actual experience. What reasons do
you think make it simplistic?

and I was just wondering if he had any proof to
support that rather sweeping assertion.

Absolutely.

How many spendy do-overs are we supposed to give you?

What?

haha- agreed.

Jeff
--
42

Typical Jeff asking me to educate him hoping as I pull something
together he will accepts as 'evidence' - I might say something he can
attack for no damned good reason.

Unfortuantely, I'm on a beach in New Zealand in a caravan with very
limited bandwidth. I'm looking at sites for a new hydrogen supply
chain I am building to re-start Huntly Power Station and start
(finally) Marsden Point power station - both as clean hydrogen burning
power plants. We will also use hydrogen to turn stranded coal that's
no longer burned to supply 1,200 MW of power to thousands of barrels
of petrol per day - made in New Zealand.

Anyway, if I had the bandwidth, I would search through the excellent
papers done by MIT and Harvard business graduates that have studied
this problem. Of course, its my discussions with folks at Motorola
and Teledesic at the time that made the problem obvious to me.

I will be back at my beach house in Christchurch (Sumner) and will
look up stuff then when I have the time.

In article a36b55d6-8bf6-402c-8380-e8201318a909
@r16g2000prh.googlegroups.com, says...

On Dec 13, 5:43*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 3d98eedd-c616-4100-8eb5-e633c6fb80e5
@k14g2000pre.googlegroups.com, says...
Your typical excuses and delay justifications are noted.

What excuse? *Mook makes it sound like he thinks the lead time on launch
vehicles is what made Teledesic and Iridium fail.

A 7 year lead time to bring an advanced consumer electronics product
to market - a market which radically transforms every 18 months - is a
guarantee of failure. Everyone at Motorola and Microsoft knows this -
now.

*That's obviously an
oversimplistic argument

Its an accurate argument based on actual experience. What reasons do
you think make it simplistic?

and I was just wondering if he had any proof to
support that rather sweeping assertion.

Absolutely.

How many spendy do-overs are we supposed to give you?

What?

haha- agreed.

Jeff
--
42

Typical Jeff asking me to educate him hoping as I pull something
together he will accepts as 'evidence' - I might say something he can
attack for no damned good reason.

Unfortuantely, I'm on a beach in New Zealand in a caravan with very
limited bandwidth. I'm looking at sites for a new hydrogen supply
chain I am building to re-start Huntly Power Station and start
(finally) Marsden Point power station - both as clean hydrogen burning
power plants. We will also use hydrogen to turn stranded coal that's
no longer burned to supply 1,200 MW of power to thousands of barrels
of petrol per day - made in New Zealand.

Anyway, if I had the bandwidth, I would search through the excellent
papers done by MIT and Harvard business graduates that have studied
this problem. Of course, its my discussions with folks at Motorola
and Teledesic at the time that made the problem obvious to me.

I will be back at my beach house in Christchurch (Sumner) and will
look up stuff then when I have the time.

Please look these up when you have the time, because everything I've
read points to several other reasons for Iridium's failure.


http://74.220.211.32/manuals/Iridium.pdf

The above paper backs up what I remember. Cell service expanded faster
than Iridium expected, Iridium had supply problems with their mobile
satellite phones (has nothing to do with launching the satellites), and
the satellite phones were rather large and cumbersome when compared to
cell phones available at that time.

It was a recipe for failure which had little to do with long lead times
on buying launches for the satellites. The final product just fell flat
because its benefits (calls could be made anywhere in the world) didn't
outweigh its downsides (expensive huge phones coupled with expensive
service).

There are other articles on-line which talk about Iridium's failu

http://knowledge.wpcarey.asu.edu/art...articleid=1034

https://drachma.colorado.edu/dspace/.../1/An+analysis
+of+Iridium.pdf

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/bu...h-reasons-for-
iridium-failure-1113638.html

From above:

Iridium handsets cost pounds 1,900 and calls were as much as
pounds 5 per minute. Worse still, the Iridium handsets were
clunky, weighed about 1lb, and harkened back to Motorola's
infamous brick phones, common a decade ago.

Even today's Iridium phones are big and expensive:

http://www.vzwsatellite.com/products/iridium9555

Jeff
--
42

On Dec 14, 12:09*am, William Mook wrote:
On Dec 13, 5:43*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:



In article 3d98eedd-c616-4100-8eb5-e633c6fb80e5
@k14g2000pre.googlegroups.com, says...

On Dec 13, 8:04 am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 2515e691-de72-450d-b305-6677c2f23806@
35g2000prt.googlegroups.com, says...

Jeff asks, where is the need for quick commercial launches.
Obviously, he doesn't understand the value of time to market. This is
what killed Teledesic and Iridium. By the time Motorola got their
Iridium satellites on orbit development of ground based systems made
them obsolete in most markets. It was a practical demonstration of
the need for quick commercial launches.

You make it sound as if Teledesic and Iridium had built and tested all
their satellites and had them sitting in a warehouse somewhere waiting
for a launch opportunity.

Are you asserting that Teledesic and Iridium's time to market was
negatively impacted by their inability to purchase launches in a timely
manner? If so, what evidence do you have to back up this assertion?

Satellites take quite a bit of time to design, build, and test before
launch. You can't just pick one off the shelf of your local mega-mart
and launch it the next day. As long as the lead time on a launcher is
less than the lead time for the satellite, the lead time for the launch
vehicle is completely and utterly irrelevant.

Jeff
--
42

Your typical excuses and delay justifications are noted.

What excuse? *Mook makes it sound like he thinks the lead time on launch
vehicles is what made Teledesic and Iridium fail.

A 7 year lead time to bring an advanced consumer electronics product
to market - a market which radically transforms every 18 months - is a
guarantee of failure. *Everyone at Motorola and Microsoft knows this -
now.

*That's obviously an
oversimplistic argument

Its an accurate argument based on actual experience. *What reasons do
you think make it simplistic?

and I was just wondering if he had any proof to
support that rather sweeping assertion.

Absolutely.

How many spendy do-overs are we supposed to give you?

What?

haha- agreed.

Jeff
--
42

Typical Jeff asking me to educate him hoping as I pull something
together he will accepts as 'evidence' - I might say something he can
attack for no damned good reason.

Unfortuantely, I'm on a beach in New Zealand in a caravan with very
limited bandwidth. *I'm looking at sites for a new hydrogen supply
chain I am building to re-start Huntly Power Station and start
(finally) Marsden Point power station - both as clean hydrogen burning
power plants. *We will also use hydrogen to turn stranded coal that's
no longer burned to supply 1,200 MW of power to thousands of barrels
of petrol per day - made in New Zealand.

Anyway, if I had the bandwidth, I would search through the excellent
papers done by MIT and Harvard business graduates that have studied
this problem. *Of course, its my discussions with folks at Motorola
and Teledesic at the time that made the problem obvious to me.

I will be back at my beach house in Christchurch (Sumner) and will
look up stuff then when I have the time.

Jeff is actually a NASA/DARPA kinda guy, whereas anything they do or
don't do is perfectly fine and dandy by his way of thinking. So, no
matters what the delay or cost overrun makes no difference
whatsoever. In other words, if our NIF accomplished their goal of
fusion energy in 20 years and another trillion dollars from now, so be
it as far as Jeff is concerned.

~ BG

On Dec 13, 2:43*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 3d98eedd-c616-4100-8eb5-e633c6fb80e5
@k14g2000pre.googlegroups.com, says...





On Dec 13, 8:04 am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 2515e691-de72-450d-b305-6677c2f23806@
35g2000prt.googlegroups.com, says...

Jeff asks, where is the need for quick commercial launches.
Obviously, he doesn't understand the value of time to market. This is
what killed Teledesic and Iridium. By the time Motorola got their
Iridium satellites on orbit development of ground based systems made
them obsolete in most markets. It was a practical demonstration of
the need for quick commercial launches.

You make it sound as if Teledesic and Iridium had built and tested all
their satellites and had them sitting in a warehouse somewhere waiting
for a launch opportunity.

Are you asserting that Teledesic and Iridium's time to market was
negatively impacted by their inability to purchase launches in a timely
manner? If so, what evidence do you have to back up this assertion?

Satellites take quite a bit of time to design, build, and test before
launch. You can't just pick one off the shelf of your local mega-mart
and launch it the next day. As long as the lead time on a launcher is
less than the lead time for the satellite, the lead time for the launch
vehicle is completely and utterly irrelevant.

Jeff
--
42

Your typical excuses and delay justifications are noted.

What excuse? *Mook makes it sound like he thinks the lead time on launch
vehicles is what made Teledesic and Iridium fail. *That's obviously an
oversimplistic argument and I was just wondering if he had any proof to
support that rather sweeping assertion.

How many spendy do-overs are we supposed to give you?

What?

Jeff
--
42

Cheaper, faster and more reliable launch capability couldn't possibly
hurt anyone.

The spendy OCO mission(s) should have been up and running, whereas
instead we got nothing except having to pay for yet another public-
funded dead horse, and we're still not offered an official clue as to
those responsible for its demise.

~ BG

In article c2d1643d-7f75-405d-a478-
, says...

Jeff is actually a NASA/DARPA kinda guy, whereas anything they do or
don't do is perfectly fine and dandy by his way of thinking.

B.S. I was against Ares I and Ares V from day one. Ares I, in
particular, was the stupidest idea for a crew launch vehicle in the
history of manned spaceflight and I'm happy to see it die!

I've been a supporter of commercial cargo and commercial crew to/from
ISS from day one as well. It's time to get NASA out of the "routine"
part of spaceflight, which is to and from LEO, so HOPEFULLY NASA can
focus on bigger and better things, like developing in space refueling
technologies, aerospike engines, and etc.

NASA needs to be reformed into a more NACA like agency. It should be
developing the technologies which enable commercial space to thrive. It
should not be in competition with commercial space. It needs to get out
of the way of commercial space.

That means I really don't want to see any more NASA developed launch
vehicles. Unfortunately, US politics says otherwise.

Jeff
--
42

In article 7656cef1-cf32-434a-8935-664bca6bb063
@t8g2000prh.googlegroups.com, says...

Cheaper, faster and more reliable launch capability couldn't possibly
hurt anyone.

The spendy OCO mission(s) should have been up and running, whereas
instead we got nothing except having to pay for yet another public-
funded dead horse, and we're still not offered an official clue as to
those responsible for its demise.

I agree, but I still don't think lead times on launch vehicles is the
huge bottleneck that Mook is making it out to be. Everything I've read
says that Iridium had other *huge* problems completely unrelated to
launch vehicle availability.

Jeff
--
42

On Dec 15, 6:58*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 7656cef1-cf32-434a-8935-664bca6bb063
@t8g2000prh.googlegroups.com, says...



Cheaper, faster and more reliable launch capability couldn't possibly
hurt anyone.

The spendy OCO mission(s) should have been up and running, whereas
instead we got nothing except having to pay for yet another public-
funded dead horse, and we're still not offered an official clue as to
those responsible for its demise.

I agree, but I still don't think lead times on launch vehicles is the
huge bottleneck that Mook is making it out to be. *Everything I've read
says that Iridium had other *huge* problems completely unrelated to
launch vehicle availability.

Jeff
--
42

Mook always makes something seem bigger than it is, but he means well
and isn't always systematically wrong because of how he thinks we
should advance.

Of lower cost and much environmentally cleaner launch capability
that's reliable and reusable as possible would have greatly improved
the private/commercial utilization and exploration of space,
especially on behalf of private LEO space stations and of the Clarke
Station and/or that of my LSE/CM-ISS (Boeing OASIS and many other
Earth-moon L1 considerations as of decades ago). Long before now we
could have had a Venus L2 space station as our cool outpost/gateway.

It's hard to fully imagine how much better off we'd all be without a
public funded NASA that has no intentions or incentives of ever
sharing technology or showing any break-even, much less an actual
profit (aka return on investment). Now we're out of time, as well as
worse than broke, and China as well as India are about to leave us in
their dust.

~ BG