The Non-Innovator's Dilemma

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 12:32:38 CST, in a place far, far away, "Jon
Berndt" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

There are a few companies out there now that are working hard trying to make
an attempt at a short, suborbital flight (the links that Rand provided in
his column when referring to private ventures: "having its [NASA] high-cost
myths exposed as private entities start to show the way to affordable and
safe human spaceflight"). As much as I find Scaled Composite's current
endeavor fascinating to follow, let's keep in mind that there is a big
difference between what it takes to go from 2,000 mph in a suborbital arc to
17,500 mph and LEO - the ideal energy required (per pound) scales roughly
with the square of the velocity.

I actually think that Burt's flight is a stunt, optimized purely to
win the X-Prize, but unlikely to provide an evolutionary path to
orbit, but that doesn't apply to all of the X-Prize contenders (or the
non-X-Prize contenders, like XCOR, or Pioneer, Blue Origin, or
SpaceX).

In any event, we have to walk (or even crawl) before we run.

The point is that the startups are finally taking a sensible approach
to developing safe, low-cost space transports. They are developing
safe, low-cost suborbitals, which can then have their envelopes
gradually expanded, increasing velocity and altitude until they
eventually have safe, affordable orbital transports.

NASA's approach is to have a low-cost and safe system spring full-born
from the head of Zeus, and to have the hubris to think that they know
how to do it, and can predict the specific technologies and operations
required to do it, with almost zero experience with low-cost and safe
*anything*. The latter approach has been shown to fail, repeatedly,
at the cost of billions of dollars of taxpayers' dollars, and lost
decades. It's time to go back to the original incremental approach
(started with the X-15) that was dropped in the rush to get to the
Moon.

I also want to see safe and affordable
routine access to space become available, and I am curious as to just how
cheap and safe Rand thinks a private company could do it, compared to the
current way (or proposed future, as with OSP) it is being done. How much
should it cost a private enterprise to develop and test a four person space
transportation vehicle? How much should it cost, per flight, to operate? In
other words, how far off the mark are we, now?

In terms of development costs, a private entity should be able to do
it for easily an order of magnitude less than a cost-plus contract.
As to operational cost, that depends entirely on flight rate. As I
point out in the column, by its nature OSP will never achieve the low
marginal costs necessary to achieve the high flight rates that are
necessary to drive down per-flight costs, because it's wed to an
expensive expendable. You might propose that we eventually develop a
reusable booster for it, but in that case, it will be an extremely
suboptimized system, because it doesn't really make sense to design a
space transport with a tiny reusable crew capsule (winged or
otherwise) as a final stage, because it probably implies three stages,
when, at the current technology level, two is probably best.

The real issue, as I pointed out, comes back to requirements, and what
our vision for the future of manned space is. OSP is business as
usual, in which no one will be going into space except a few
government employees for the foreseeable future. It may save a few
lives, relative to the Shuttle, but it's unlikely to save any money,
and it will perpetuate the myth that only the government can afford to
put people into space.

--
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:

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message

Fortunately, not everyone shares your doubts.

True, and I wish them luck and success. It would be a _pleasant_ surprise if
they succeed.

Jon

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message

The real issue, as I pointed out, comes back to requirements, and what
our vision for the future of manned space is. OSP is business as
usual, in which no one will be going into space except a few
government employees for the foreseeable future. It may save a few
lives, relative to the Shuttle, but it's unlikely to save any money,
and it will perpetuate the myth that only the government can afford to
put people into space.

At this time, it's not a myth. At this time only the government can orbit
people - unfortunately. I don't expect to see a private enterprise orbit
people for quite a while, and if they do it will likely be viewed as a
stunt, as well. I don't see a way out of that unless there is a good
business reason to go into space. I am very doubtful about space tourism on
a scale that would make the design, development, and operation of a
commercial space transportation vehicle anything but an investment disaster.

Jon

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 13:25:47 CST, in a place far, far away, "Jon
Berndt" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message

The real issue, as I pointed out, comes back to requirements, and what
our vision for the future of manned space is. OSP is business as
usual, in which no one will be going into space except a few
government employees for the foreseeable future. It may save a few
lives, relative to the Shuttle, but it's unlikely to save any money,
and it will perpetuate the myth that only the government can afford to
put people into space.

At this time, it's not a myth.

I meant myth in the sense of widely held cultural belief (which is the
sense in which anthropologists use it). Myths may or may not be true.
To the degree that it continues to discourage private investment, this
particular myth remains a self-fulling one.

I am very doubtful about space tourism on
a scale that would make the design, development, and operation of a
commercial space transportation vehicle anything but an investment disaster.

Fortunately, not everyone shares your doubts.

--
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:

"Dholmes" wrote in message
...

However, at this point, that money has been spent. So it's already
accounted for. You want to count it twice.


You always use the same standards when comparing two proposals.
I am only trying to count each once not one 0 times and the other 3 times
by
adding in interest.

But you're not comparing the same thing in both cases. The sunk costs for
the shuttle are spent. There's nothing in the budget to account for
"Original R&D" in future shuttle ops. There is such a thing as "Original
R&D" for the OSP.

Unlike private industry, NASA doesn't have to amortize costs after the fact.

Now, if you want to include FUTURE R&D costs for the Shuttle (safety
upgrades, etc) that's entirely appropriate.





Lower failure rate has yet to be demonstrated. Is that 4 billion a
capsule?
Or for X capsules?

As much as I like the Shuttle it is kind of hard to end up with a higher
failure rate.

Sure there is. Look at almost any other rocket system in the world.


Developing and building the first most estimate around 250 million per
capsule after that.

Thanks.

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 15:44:25 CST, in a place far, far away, "Dholmes"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

I see several flaws with your argument.

1) By using development costs for the OSP vs. not including them for the
shuttle you compare apples on oranges making the cost comparison
worthless.

Nope. I addressed that in the column. You can't compare sunk costs
to avoidable ones, at least if you're trying to make a rational
economic decision.

When comparing 2 proposals you should always compare them equally when
possible.
To not do so is bad economics. By not treating them the same you set up a
strawman arguement.

I don't think you know what a strawman argument is.

Look. You have an old car that's already paid for. You're thinking
about buying another one. Keeping the old one has costs of upkeep and
maintenance. Buying a new one has the cost of purchasing it. The
only cost basis on which you're going to make the decision as to
whether or not to buy the new one is how much it will sot you int the
*future*--whether or not the payments of the new car are worth it,
relative to continuing to repair and maintain the old one. You will
not, unless you're insane, consider the payments that you already paid
on the old one, because those are already paid, and you don't have any
control over them.

4) If you are using 3 OSP flights to replace a shuttle flight and you
replace at least 4 shuttle flights a year that totals 12 not 4 or 8. If
you
replace 6 shuttle flights then you have 18 flights.

How do you figure? You can't count the cargo flights.

If you are carrying it up by OSP or OSP with an attached cargo capsule then
of course you count it.

Even if it does not go up by OSP but replaces a shuttle flight it reduces
overall costs it could be argued to count it but this is more debatable.
Divide 1000 by 4 then divide 1000 by 20 the figures are radically different.

But you wouldn't divide it by twenty, unless there are going to be
twenty OSP flights. You will only fly OSP on those flights that
require crew, and those are much fewer than cargo flights.

Again it comes back to using the same figures for both.

No, it comes back to using what makes accounting sense.

5) If they use the capsule version they will be reasonably cheap.

That remains to be seen.

If it is not then they have messed up big time and they should just copy the
Russians or the Chinese.

They've messed up big time repeatedly in the past. If by "messing up
big time" means spending many billions of dollars on the OSP, they've
already indicated that that's exactly what they're going to do.

There is
no reason a private company with its own rocket could not buy an OSP.

No, but there are many reasons that it wouldn't--the high costs.

The Russian, American and Chinese experience with capsules say this is not
the case.

Really? How many private companies have bought Russian, American and
Chinese capsules?

That was exactly the point of the column.

Then you should be proposing ways for NASA to buy rockets from private
companies to increase those volumes

That's a different column. I publish columns, not books.

not encourage fewer such purchases.

In what way did I do that?

You apparently didn't read the column carefully.

I read it.
I just used the same figures for both and came to a completely different
conclusion based on an equal comparison.

Because you apparently don't understand basic accounting. Remind me
not to have you make any business decisions for me.

--
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:

"Jon Berndt" wrote in message
...
"Dholmes" wrote:

2) Using three launches have nothing to do with rocket capabilities. The
heavy versions of both the Delta and Atlas could launch a Big Gemini
with
lots of cargo mass left over totaling more people and more cargo then
the
shuttle. It has to do with reducing risks even though it raises costs.
...
4) If you are using 3 OSP flights to replace a shuttle flight and you
replace at least 4 shuttle flights a year that totals 12 not 4 or 8. If
you
replace 6 shuttle flights then you have 18 flights.

I think we also have to consider what the future needs will be. After ISS
is
assembled, would there be a need for launching crews *and* payloads
together? For satellites, space telescopes, etc. there is a need for a
*single* launch. For crew rotations carrying a small amount of payload
there is need for a *single* launch. I find this comparison in Rand's
column off target.


No but many experiments would need to be retrieved and therefore would have
to go up on an OSP even though unmanned.
One of the conditions of the OSP is that it be able to dock with the station
unmanned.
Even if it is just a cargo run it would use much of the same equipment(
launch pad, base rocket, navigation etc) and people.

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 07:02:57 CST, 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
.. .
That's the title of my latest column at Tech Central Station, in which
I discuss why the economics of OSP make no sense.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/091903E.html

I see several flaws with your argument.

1) By using development costs for the OSP vs. not including them for the
shuttle you compare apples on oranges making the cost comparison
worthless.

Nope. I addressed that in the column. You can't compare sunk costs
to avoidable ones, at least if you're trying to make a rational
economic decision.

When comparing 2 proposals you should always compare them equally when
possible.
To not do so is bad economics. By not treating them the same you set up a
strawman arguement.


2) Using three launches have nothing to do with rocket capabilities. The
heavy versions of both the Delta and Atlas could launch a Big Gemini with
lots of cargo mass left over totaling more people and more cargo then the
shuttle. It has to do with reducing risks even though it raises costs.

I don't understand what you're saying here, or the relevance.

3) The vast majority of the 12 billion cost estimates has to do with "man
rating" Atlas and Delta not the OSP itself.

So? It's still a cost that has to be amortized.

4) If you are using 3 OSP flights to replace a shuttle flight and you
replace at least 4 shuttle flights a year that totals 12 not 4 or 8. If
you
replace 6 shuttle flights then you have 18 flights.

How do you figure? You can't count the cargo flights.

If you are carrying it up by OSP or OSP with an attached cargo capsule then
of course you count it.
Even if it does not go up by OSP but replaces a shuttle flight it reduces
overall costs it could be argued to count it but this is more debatable.
Divide 1000 by 4 then divide 1000 by 20 the figures are radically different.
Again it comes back to using the same figures for both.


5) If they use the capsule version they will be reasonably cheap.

That remains to be seen.

If it is not then they have messed up big time and they should just copy the
Russians or the Chinese.


There is
no reason a private company with its own rocket could not buy an OSP.

No, but there are many reasons that it wouldn't--the high costs.

The Russian, American and Chinese experience with capsules say this is not
the case.


All
they need is the ability to launch 8 tons to LEO, less if they want to
sell
suborbital flights.

6) Reusability is in the early stages not all that important. Without
sufficient rate of launches to support a decent number of vehicles and
absorb fixed costs reusability can easily raise costs.

That was exactly the point of the column.

Then you should be proposing ways for NASA to buy rockets from private
companies to increase those volumes not encourage fewer such purchases.



7) Delta and Atlas rockets at low launch rates cost less then $100
million.
Shuttle flights cost right now over $600 million.
Even at an extra $100 million you only have the same cost not more for a
safer vehicle. With a little luck and decent launch rates you should be
able
to get launch costs under $100 million. Based on 4 people and 500 kg of
cargo that is around $20 million a person considerably cheaper then the
shuttle at around $50 million.

You apparently didn't read the column carefully.

I read it.
I just used the same figures for both and came to a completely different
conclusion based on an equal comparison.

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message
news

"Dholmes" wrote in message
...

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
That's the title of my latest column at Tech Central Station, in which
I discuss why the economics of OSP make no sense.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/091903E.html

I see several flaws with your argument.

1) By using development costs for the OSP vs. not including them for the
shuttle you compare apples on oranges making the cost comparison
worthless.

No. If we're back in 1972 making this decision, then including shuttle
development costs would be important.

However, at this point, that money has been spent. So it's already
accounted for. You want to count it twice.


You always use the same standards when comparing two proposals.
I am only trying to count each once not one 0 times and the other 3 times by
adding in interest.



Lower failure rate has yet to be demonstrated. Is that 4 billion a
capsule?
Or for X capsules?

As much as I like the Shuttle it is kind of hard to end up with a higher
failure rate.
Developing and building the first most estimate around 250 million per
capsule after that.

On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 15:56:28 CST, in a place far, far away,
h (Rand Simberg) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Look. You have an old car that's already paid for. You're thinking
about buying another one. Keeping the old one has costs of upkeep and
maintenance. Buying a new one has the cost of purchasing it. The
only cost basis on which you're going to make the decision as to
whether or not to buy the new one is how much it will sot you int the
*future*--whether or not the payments of the new car are worth it,
relative to continuing to repair and maintain the old one.

No idea how it came out that way.

It should be, of course, "The only cost basis on which you're going to
make the decision as to whether or not to buy the new one is how much
it will cost you in the *future*.

--
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: