Past Perfect, Future Misleading

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
I have some more commentary on the Gehman report, and why we should
not build "the" next generation launch system.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,95930,00.html


While I agree in theory with much of what you are saying IMO the market is
not yet developed to that point especially considering the poor orbit the
station is in.

Better to concentrate on replacing the shuttles lift capacity in an open
market.
For each of the three people the shuttles leave at the station it is also
leaving about 4 tons of thrust, equipment and supplies.
That according to some estimates is 50 tons a year add to that launching
NASA's space plane and you have a market for 10-70 flights a year on
commercial launchers depending on size.

We do not need any new technology just what we have used more efficiently
and often.

On 28 Aug 2003 22:15:01 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Dholmes"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:


"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
.. .
I have some more commentary on the Gehman report, and why we should
not build "the" next generation launch system.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,95930,00.html


While I agree in theory with much of what you are saying IMO the market is
not yet developed to that point especially considering the poor orbit the
station is in.

I'm not sure what relevance the space station's orbit has.

--
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 or about 28 Aug 2003 22:40:09 GMT, Rand Simberg
made the sensational claim that:
On 28 Aug 2003 22:15:01 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Dholmes"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:
While I agree in theory with much of what you are saying IMO the market is
not yet developed to that point especially considering the poor orbit the
station is in.

I'm not sure what relevance the space station's orbit has.

Just a guess, but I'd say he's thinking of the payload hit launching to the
station from my back yard.
--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | This space is for rent
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | Inquire within if you
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | Would like your ad here

Dholmes wrote:

[snip]

One thing that might get the industry going is to sell the shuttles instead
of retiring them. Then the risk falls to the people willing to fly them and
they could with modifications carry a lot of people.

I seiously doubt that anyone would privately operate the shuttles on
an economic basis. Concorde barely cut it, in known markets. (albeit
limited by sonic boom restrictions to mostly over-water routes) The
orbiters just cost too much to operate.

You just can not go from Kitty Hawk to passenger flights crossing the
Atlantic with the added bonuses of needing to go to Moscow in one leap. I
say lets get mail service going first.

There is no demand or need for suborbital mail service. The major
limiting factor on mail delivery is getting it from the airport to the
recipient, not the flight time.

Joann Evans wrote in message ...
Dholmes wrote:

[snip]

One thing that might get the industry going is to sell the shuttles instead
of retiring them. Then the risk falls to the people willing to fly them and
they could with modifications carry a lot of people.

I seiously doubt that anyone would privately operate the shuttles on
an economic basis. Concorde barely cut it, in known markets. (albeit
limited by sonic boom restrictions to mostly over-water routes) The
orbiters just cost too much to operate.

Concorde -never- cut it. It's a perfect example of creating a service
without looking into the market for it.

"John Ordover" wrote in message
om...
You just can not go from Kitty Hawk to passenger flights crossing the
Atlantic with the added bonuses of needing to go to Moscow in one leap.
I
say lets get mail service going first.

There is no demand or need for suborbital mail service. The major
limiting factor on mail delivery is getting it from the airport to the
recipient, not the flight time.


How could you misread that so completely?
Mail service as written was clearly not literal.
Probably the closest thing today are the cargo runs to ISS.
Weekly deliveries of less then a ton or monthly deliveries of 3 to 4 tonsof
supplies to ISS would start a whole new market by starting volume production
and launch of rockets driving down costs.

In article ,
says...
Concorde -never- cut it. It's a perfect example of creating a service
without looking into the market for it.

Concorde *did* show an operational profit for many years. People were
willing to pay for speed, service, and snob-appeal.

R&D expenses had to be written-off. It was expensive to design and
build. That's not uncommon in systems that advance the state of the art.

It took a while to learn how to operate and market Concorde effectively.
Changing times ended her career. But in between, she flew profitably.
--
Kevin Willoughby oSpam

Imagine that, a FROG ON-OFF switch, hardly the work
for test pilots. -- Mike Collins

John Ordover wrote:

Joann Evans wrote in message ...
Dholmes wrote:

[snip]

One thing that might get the industry going is to sell the shuttles instead
of retiring them. Then the risk falls to the people willing to fly them and
they could with modifications carry a lot of people.

I seiously doubt that anyone would privately operate the shuttles on
an economic basis. Concorde barely cut it, in known markets. (albeit
limited by sonic boom restrictions to mostly over-water routes) The
orbiters just cost too much to operate.

Concorde -never- cut it. It's a perfect example of creating a service
without looking into the market for it.

It was limited by matters outside of market forces:

The unacceptability of sonic booms over inhabited areas.

Fuel efficency/consumption that was acceptable when designed, but
suffering, post 1973.

Engine noise that was acceptable when designed, but suffering under
new rules.

It's a bit like nuclear pulse. Performance isn't the main reason we
don't do it, side effects are.

Now, it's entirely possible that Concorde *still* might have been an
economic failure, but more than economics were involved. We know people
want to fly the routes it did (and could have) flown, but it wasn't just
a matter of how much more they would pay for more speed.

kevin wrote:

In article ,
says...

Concorde -never- cut it. It's a perfect example of creating a service
without looking into the market for it.


Concorde *did* show an operational profit for many years. People were
willing to pay for speed, service, and snob-appeal.

R&D expenses had to be written-off. It was expensive to design and
build. That's not uncommon in systems that advance the state of the art.

It took a while to learn how to operate and market Concorde effectively.
Changing times ended her career. But in between, she flew profitably.
Did it ever make back it's initial development investment?
Was it a Rah-Rah we beat the US, screw the UK and French taxpayers?
Jim Davis